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 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Peer review, authorship, ethics, and conflict of interest.

PURPOSE: To explore problems in peer review, authorship, ethics, and conflict of interest related to writing and publishing. Publishing and adhering to principles is critical as nurse researchers, educators, administrators, and practitioners participate in the development and dissemination of knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The quality and integrity of nursing publications are affected by peer review, author collaboration, and ethical conduct. Understanding the conflicts of interest inherent in each action and being committed to impartial review and meeting the requirements of authorship can ensure fewer difficulties for authors, publishers, and consumers.

Authorship↗
PubMed2003

The promotion of academic pediatric otolaryngology by journal peer review.

The professional journal promotes and sustains academic departments through several mechanisms that include peer review, editing, timing, and solicitation of works. The ways in which peer review strengthens and augments academic pediatric otolaryngology are through: the creation of new knowledge; knowledge transfer-teaching; the establishment and development of quality medical/surgical standards; scholarship; and the fostering of the development of the next generation of academic physicians is detailed.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1976

Peer review and PSRO: an update.

The author provides a summary of developments in peer review and Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs) within APA, the federal government, and the American Medical Association between June 1974 and June 1975. He discusses the reaction of the medical profession to the interim guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the problems of financing PSROs. He concludes that the key issues for PSROs and peer review in general are the availability and effectiveness of local review components, and that lack of involvement on the part of psychiatry will only ensure that nonpsychiatrists will design the review procedures.

Financing, Government↗
PubMed1990

Peer review: self help for occupational health nurses.

Nurses validate their actions with other nurses whose knowledge and skills they value. Where opportunities for evaluation do not exist, enthusiasm and creativity can wane. Peer review is a process that includes education, case writing, evaluation, and research. Peer review is not punitive. It is a professional review and has no place in personnel records or periodic evaluation by one's supervisors. Local constituencies can provide peer review programs for their members as part of their monthly meetings.

Humans↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Peer review in a New York chapter of the ACNM 1987-1994.

This article is an overview of peer review in Region 2, Chapter 1 (New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties) of the New York chapter of the American College of Nurse-Midwives from 1987 to 1994. It includes a review of the legal and ethical issues, philosophy, process, standards, and procedure for site review. Problems, findings, and the future of peer review in New York are discussed.

Certification↗
PubMed1979

Peer review: a model for professional accountability.

This article describes the implementation of a peer review process for the classification, promotion, and ongoing evaluation of professional nurses in a large university hospital. From their experience, the authors discuss particular considerations and problems to be managed when implementing peer review.

Humans↗
PubMed1993

Caesarean section audit by peer review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide activity audit data on 50 consecutive caesarean sections and assess the justification for the decision to perform each caesarean section. DESIGN: A retrospective audit with peer review. SETTING: Aberdeen Maternity Hospital. SUBJECTS: Fifty consecutive women undergoing caesarean section. The peer review was undertaken by four consultants and four registrars. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportions of caesarean sections by indication stratified according to primiparae or multiparae and emergency or elective procedures. The auditors were asked 'do you think caesarean section was reasonable?' RESULTS: There were 18 (36%) elective caesarean sections and 32 (64%) emergency procedures. Of the 25 (50%) parous women, 14 (56%) had a previous caesarean section and of these 12 (86%) had an elective repeat caesarean section. Foetal distress was the principal indication for emergency caesarean section in 20 (63%) women, with foetal blood sampling performed in only four cases. For emergency caesarean sections the decision to delivery interval ranged from 13 to 160 min (mean 50 min). At least one auditor disagreed with the decision to perform caesarean section in 24 (48%) cases. Between observers the range of disagreement was from 2 to 18 of the decisions. In only 6 (33%) of the 18 elective procedures was there complete agreement. Four (67%) of these women had two previous caesarean sections. There was complete agreement with 20 (63%) of the 32 emergency caesarean sections. Conclusions--Interventions considered as a result of this audit include the introduction of structured diagnostic criteria for caesarean section indications and peer review by the on-call team of the caesarean sections performed in the preceding 24 h.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

The purpose of peer review in the case of an open-access publication.

First scientific journals were simply a way of informing colleagues about new research findings. In due course, they started filtering out unreasonable claims, and introduced a peer-review system. The purpose of peer reviewing changed with time. Since the middle of the past century, commercial publishers have owned a large number of scientific journals and as a result, the marketable value of a submitted manuscript has become an increasingly important factor in publishing decisions. Recently some publishers have developed business schemes which may stop this tendency. In the case of an open-access publication, the marketable value of a manuscript is not the primary consideration, since access to the research is not being sold. This innovation challenges scientists to re-consider the purpose of peer review. This editorial indicates some of the commonly used criteria for publication that consequently should receive less or little emphasis under the open-access model.

Editorial↗
PubMed1998

Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.

CONTEXT: Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation. DESIGN: Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (1 9%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.

Authorship↗
PubMed1992

Postgraduate teaching audit by peer review of videotape recordings.

The effectiveness of peer review in postgraduate medical teaching by hospital consultants using videotape recordings of teaching sessions has been assessed. The technique is useful for routine, infrequent and for 'one off' self-tuition. Participants' assessment of the 'clarity of structure' of teaching sessions and 'abilities to self-analyse' did change but 'mannerisms' did not.

Education, Medical, Continuing↗
PubMed1987

The pharmacy medication error peer-review committee.

A pharmacy medication error peer-review committee was established for reviewing, evaluating and, classifying medication errors occurring within or emanating from pharmacy service. The panel is charged with classifying reported errors, making recommendations for reducing and preventing errors, and making recommendations for changes in the classification system or definition of "medication errors." The panel membership allows for staff as well as administrative representation. Improved patient care and a more objective basis for administrative and/or disciplinary actions has resulted from this mechanism.

Medication Errors↗
PubMed1989

Rating intervals: an experiment in peer review.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) peer review process for research grant applications is one of the largest and most respected systems of its kind in the world. Recently, however, the distribution of raw priority scores voted by NIH study sections has been skewed, and the rating behavior of individual review groups has been quite variable. These phenomena have made funding decisions more difficult. To achieve greater uniformity of rating behavior and a broader description of scores, an experiment was conducted involving 24 study sections. Standard adjectival descriptors and standard rating scales were used. On a random basis, half of the study sections were instructed to vote in units of 0.1 while the other half used an interval of 0.5. The results of this study have now been translated into standard practice at NIH.

National Institutes of Health (U.S.)↗
PubMed1982

A successful peer review program for regulatory decisions.

A unique peer review program for Federal agencies has been operating since 1962 to provide opinions of leading investigators for sponsors in various fields of the life sciences. The most notable study has recently been completed for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) food ingredients. Over 400 substances were evaluated by a Select Committee over a 10-year period and evaluative reports were submitted to the regulatory agency. Based in part on these reports made available for public comments, the FDA has been able to develop decisions for appropriate actions on the health aspects of these food ingredients. A comprehensive report on the work of the Select Committee on GRAS substances will be published in the archival literature.

Legislation, Food↗
PubMed1991

Peer review. Part 2: The influence of internal and external standards on outcome.

Two peer review groups of ten general practitioners each reviewed their management of two conditions, 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 were collected from the general practitioners' case notes and presented to them. The following year their management was again reviewed. Group 1 improved their management of both conditions by 15%. Group 2 improved their management of the condition where internal standards were used by 12% and the condition where external standards were used by 9%. This difference was not statistically significant. Although there was a significant improvement in the management of both conditions in each group, the use of internal versus external standards made no difference to the degree of improvement following peer review.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1976

Effects of peer review on outpatient psychotherapy: therapist and patient follow-up survey.

Interviews with 80 therapists and 50 patients at a community mental health center revealed that peer review effectively monitored the appropriateness of treatment and allocated limited treatment funds without unduly interfering with established treatment patterns, relationships, or outcomes. Most therapists reported receiving helpful consultation from the peer review committee, and the process encouraged them to focus more clearly on treatment goals. On the other hand, patients were concerned about the committee's role in making decisions about their treatment. Therapists noted as a problem the lack of certainty in establishing a treatment contract prior to peer review since the contract with the patient must remain fluid during the evaluation period. The therapists and patients demonstrated remarkable agreement in their assessment of treatment progress and whether further therapy was needed.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2000

A role for clinical audit and peer review in the identification of continuing professional development needs for general dental practitioners: a discussion.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the role of peer review and clinical audit may be used in the identification of the continuing professional development (CPD) needs of general dental practitioners (GDPs). Clinical audit and peer review are intrinsically valuable in terms of the continued professional development of GDPs. Collaborative clinical audit, in particular, can provide a framework for short course input and there are particular benefits to this combination of activities which might usefully be more widely encouraged. If open to analysis in a way which retains individual anonymity, peer review and clinical audit resumes, these could be used to inform the provision of CPD and, linked to the knowledge of audit facilitators, short courses might more closely match the CPD needs of local dentists.

Dental Audit↗