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 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Reading habits of infection control coordinators in the United States: peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed evidence?

BACKGROUND: Because evidence-based health care is taking on increasing importance, we surveyed a national sample of infection control coordinators on their reading habits to discern which and how often various media are utilized. METHODS: Infection control coordinators at 797 hospitals in the United States were mailed a survey asking which peer-reviewed journals and other publications they subscribe to, their perception of the quality of the infection control articles provided by each, and the extent to which they use various resources for their work. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 74%. Infection control coordinators spend a mean of 3.6 hours/week reading journals or periodicals. Resources identified as most useful included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Web site (52%), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. (APIC) text (11%), and the APIC e-mail list (8%). Proportion of subscribers was highest for the American Journal of Infection Control (84%) and Infection Control Today (72%). The top 3 journals ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 for quality of infection control articles were Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (8.0), the American Journal of Infection Control (7.5), and the New England Journal of Medicine (7.4). The American Journal of Infection Control (85%) and Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (72%) were the most frequently used peer-reviewed sources of information, whereas Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (85%) and Hospital Infection Control (63%) ranked at the top for non-peer-reviewed periodicals. CONCLUSION: Infection control coordinators devote limited time to reading and critically appraising published evidence and rely heavily on sources that provide rapid access to information or evidence summaries, suggesting a growing need for easy-to-read, reliable sources of information about evidence-based infection prevention and control practices.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1995

The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.

Peer review of submitted manuscripts is recognized as a critical component of the publication process in all major medical journals. It lends respectability and scientific credibility to those journals that have adopted the process [1]. This function is delegated to a group of persons who perform the task selflessly and without compensation. Of the many facets of the peer review process, the selection of manuscript reviewers and their subsequent interaction with both editors and authors may be so poorly understood by aspiring authors that certain misconceptions ensue. Authors of rejected manuscripts may fear that reviewers have acted in an arbitrary and possibly censorial fashion [2, 3]. Conversely, authors of accepted manuscripts who face a mountain of revisions may wonder if such an effort is likely to improve their manuscript [4, 5]. The following questions come to mind: Where do the reviewers come from? What do they do, and what constitutes a good reviewer? What power do they have? How is reviewer performance measured? Can the editor recognize publicly the good reviewer? Are reviewers really blinded? How does one become a good reviewer? Who will be the reviewers of the future? While looking at these questions, we should consider objective approaches of assessing reviewer quality and wonder whether they would improve the quality of the published manuscript.

Peer Review, Research↗
PubMed2000

Radiologist review versus group peer review of claimed responses in a phase II study on high-dose ifosfamide in advanced soft tissue sarcomas of the adult: a study of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group.

The Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) of the EORTC ran a phase II study to assess the therapeutic activity of high-dose ifosfamide in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas by means of response rate (RR). Investigators claiming a response submitted the relevant chest radiographs (CXR) or scans to two other members of the STBSG for peer review. The reviewers completed a questionnaire indicating overall response or reasons for rejecting the claimed responses. An independent radiologist also reviewed the cases and he was blinded to the results of the peer review until the study was concluded. Twenty-two patients were reviewed by the radiologist and peer review, and the completed questionnaires were retrospectively reviewed. Two differences were noted, one partial responder (PR) was regarded as stable disease by the radiologist and one PR by peer review was determined a complete response by the radiologist. The radiologist found subsequent evidence of progressive disease in three patients who initially showed a PR, whilst the review group noted only one. This study suggests peer review in this tumor type is a satisfactory method of achieving an accurate, objective RR.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

[Agreement and differences between reviewers in a peer review procedure].

In Germany the statutory pension insurance institutions have started a quality assurance programme. Our institute developed a peer review procedure for screening the process quality of rehabilitation care. The peer review was tested in a pilot study. Our article refers to the examination of interrater reliability, intrarater reliability and reviewer bias. First of all, experienced doctors were trained in reviewing reports routinely written by rehabilitation doctors at discharge of their patients. The peers had to judge on 56 process criteria belonging to six categories (e.g. case history). The reliability coefficients were calculated for the overall judgement of each category and the overall judgement of the process quality of rehabilitation care. The coefficients of interrater reliability and the coefficients of average intrarater reliability range from sufficient to good. Only few reviewers showed a general tendency to harsh or lenient rating. The objectivity of the tested peer review procedure seems definitely higher than in American studies of peer review of hospital charts.

Bias↗
PubMed1998

Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals?

The peer review system of scientific journals is commonly assumed to prevent seriously flawed research from getting published. This paper compares the quality of 44 road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals to the quality of 79 evaluation studies dealing with the same safety measures, but not published in peer reviewed journals, in terms of seven criteria of study validity. Studies were scored for validity in terms of (1) sampling technique, (2) total sample size, (3) mean sample size for each result, (4) specification of accident or injury severity, (5) study design, (6) number of confounding factors controlled and (7) number of moderator variables specified. Confounding factors are all factors that disturb the attribution of a causal relationship between the safety measure being evaluated and the observed changes in safety, moderator variables are all variables that influence the size of the effect of the safety measure. Very few statistically reliable differences in study validity were found between studies published in peer reviewed journals and studies not published in such journals. There was, at best, a weak tendency for studies published in peer reviewed journals to score higher for validity. An interaction was found between author affiliation and type of publication with respect to study validity. Studies published in peer reviewed journals by authors who were at a university scored highest for validity. For a number of reasons, this study must be regarded as exploratory and its results as indicative only. The study does, however, point to a line of research that might be worth pursuing in larger and more rigorous studies.

Automobile Driving↗
PubMed1998

What we owe the author: rethinking editorial peer review.

Editorial peer reviewers play an important role in shaping the direction of knowledge growth of their discipline. Recent concern over reports of peer review misconduct has led some to advocate the establishment of a code of ethics for peer reviewers. Such a code should include guidelines for the discipline and for society at large, but it should also contain guidelines for the authors whose manuscripts are reviewed. Peer reviewers have a special obligation to show beneficence and fairness or impartiality towards the authors for whom they review. The practical application of these two ethical concepts is discussed.

Authorship↗
PubMed2002

[Dentists and peer review: results of a descriptive study on perceived effects of peer review].

In the Netherlands over 20% of dentists participate in peer review groups. The peer review method is highly structured and consists of: setting standards for good dental care, measuring and evaluating performances against the standards and making improvements if necessary. An independent research institute (Nivel) investigated the perceived effects and advantages of and barriers to peer review. A postal questionnaire was sent tot 278 dentists who participate in peer review (response 60%). The results showed many effects of peer review. The most frequently reported effects were: more insight into the performances of colleagues, increased inter-professional contacts, a more critical attitude to performances, increased professional expertise and new inspiration and motivation. The respondents reported improvements in practice-organisation as well as in technical aspects of dental care. However, many dentists also mentioned some barriers to peer review. The method was evaluated as rather complex and it appeared to be difficult to reach consensus about standards for good dental care. In general, respondents perceived a positive balance between advantages and disadvantages of peer review, however many dentists were dissatisfied with the lack of financial compensation for participation in peer review.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Improving peer review: alternatives to unstructured judgments by a single reviewer.

BACKGROUND: Peer review, usually involving unstructured judgments by a single peer reviewing medical records, was the backbone of quality management in health care organizations until recent years. Although other approaches to quality management, such as continuous quality improvement, are now being widely adopted, peer review can still play a role in identifying dysfunctional organizational processes and individuals delivering poor care. Given the questionable reliability and validity of peer review as usually practiced, however, a more rigorous and thoughtful approach is needed-with consideration of issues such as the number of peers involved, the nature of their interaction while forming judgments, and the type of assessment instruments they use. MULTIPLE-REVIEWER PROCEDURES: Such procedures include the use of two or more reviewers making their assessments independently, discussion to consensus among reviewers, and committee review. STRUCTURED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS: A number of studies suggest that instruments that carefully guide the reviewer have higher interrater reliability than less structured instruments. IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEM ISSUES: The focus of peer review can be expanded beyond individual practitioner performance to include assessment of the operational environment in which the clinician functions. For example, one might ask whether any changes in hospital policies or procedures or in administrative or computerized support for clinicians might have improved the care received by a patient. CONCLUSION: The available data and the known limitations of unstructured judgments by a single reviewer justify serious consideration of multiple reviewer procedures and structured assessment instruments, particularly for reviews that have major consequences for patients and practitioners.

Humans↗
PubMed1995

From collegial to codified. The evolution of modern peer review.

Physician peer review a quarter of a century ago was different than peer review today. Twenty-five years ago, peer review was conducted so physicians could learn from each other. But quality assurance and risk management programs have led to an adversarial review of physicians' practices, changing the nature of peer review. Physicians practicing today should understand how this change happened and how to cope with the results.

Peer Review↗
PubMed1989

A peer review review.

Although peer reviewer has faced many legal challenges, some protection is available to peer reviewers through state and federal law. Peer reviewers must follow specific guidelines provided by these laws to maintain this protection. This article outlined the most prominent protection currently available as well as the corollary duties and requirements by which the peer reviewers must abide.

Peer Review↗