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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a fictitious manuscript into which purposeful errors were placed could be used as an instrument to evaluate peer reviewer performance. METHODS: An instrument for reviewer evaluation was created in the form of a fictitious manuscript into which deliberate errors were placed in order to develop an approach for the analysis of peer reviewer performance. The manuscript described a double-blind, placebo control study purportedly demonstrating that intravenous propranolol reduced the pain of acute migraine headache. There were 10 major and 13 minor errors placed in the manuscript. The work was distributed to all reviewers of Annals of Emergency Medicine for review. RESULTS: The manuscript was sent to 262 reviewers; 203 (78%) reviews were returned. One-hundred ninety-nine reviewers recommended a disposition for the manuscript: 15 recommended acceptance, 117 rejection, and 67 revision. The 15 who recommended acceptance identified 17.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.3% to 23.4%) of the major and 11.8% (CI 7.3% to 16.3%) of the minor errors. The 117 who recommended rejection identified 39.1 % (CI 36.3% to 41.9%) of the major and 25.2% (CI 23.0% to 27.4%) of the minor errors. The 67 who recommended revision identified 29.6% (CI 26.1% to 33.1%) of the major and 22.0% (CI 19.3% to 24.8%) of the minor errors. The number of errors identified differed significantly across recommended disposition. Sixty-eight percent of the reviewers did not realize that the conclusions of the work were not supported by the results. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the use of a preconceived manuscript into which purposeful errors are placed may be a viable approach to evaluate reviewer performance. Peer reviewers in this study failed to identify two thirds of the major errors in such a manuscript.

Confidence Intervals↗
PubMed1982

Peer review of psychodynamic psychotherapy: generous versus restrictive reviewers.

American Psychological Association/CHAMPUS peer reviewers (N=168) evaluated clinical treatment reports that described psychodynamic treatment of middle-aged, depressed outpatients. Descriptive data are reported on the reviewer' recommendations concerning the reimbursement for previous and total (previous plus future) care. In addition, generous and restrictive reviewers are compared on their theorectical orientation, the self-reported factors affecting their review decisions, and their previously reported clinical practice patterns and attitudes toward psychological peer review. The implications of these findings for mental health quality assurance programs are discussed.

Health Benefit Plans, Employee↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The peer review process: the art of judgment.

Peer review is an essential mechanism for evaluating the judgment and performance of clinical providers. Reasons for conducting physician peer review range from identified quality-of-care concerns to general education. There are a variety of challenges to conducting an effective peer review, including the personal concerns of the peers conducting the reviews. This article reviews the potential uses of physician peer review, its basic methodologies, and challenges to and suggestions for obtaining effective peer review.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1990

The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation.

Peer review can be performed successfully only if those involved have a clear idea as to its fundamental purpose. Most authors of articles on the subject assume that the purpose of peer review is quality control. This is an inadequate answer. The fundamental purpose of peer review in the biomedical sciences must be consistent with that of medicine itself, to cure sometimes, to relieve often, to comfort always. Peer review must therefore aim to facilitate the introduction into medicine of improved ways of curing, relieving, and comforting patients. The fulfillment of this aim requires both quality control and the encouragement of innovation. If an appropriate balance between the two is lost, then peer review will fail to fulfill its purpose.

Peer Review↗
PubMed1995

Taking the fear out of peer review.

In this model, peer review takes place in the setting of a professional practice model and focuses on staff development, compliance with standards of care and annual performance appraisal. The roles of group facilitators and the nurse manager are outlined. A discussion of the problems and benefits of peer review is presented.

Employee Performance Appraisal↗
PubMed1993

The psychiatrist and peer review: a psychodynamic perspective.

Consideration of peer review is timely, given that formalization of peer review processes is one of the responses the psychiatric profession could make to increasing calls for accountability from within and without the profession. The establishment of formal peer review evoked strong, often hostile, responses among psychiatrists in the United States, reflecting considerable underlying anxiety. This paper examines the responses to formal peer review in psychiatrists from a psychodynamic perspective.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1980

Utilization review committee as a peer review mechanism.

The appropriate utilization and the quality of care in long-term care facilities should be documented and monitored. This is best accomplished at the local level by physicians and other professionals serving on Utilization Review Committees. Paper compliance to regulation of state or federal agencies is a poor substitute for active involvement of the professionals at the local level.

Nursing Homes↗
PubMed1985

Grant application and review procedures of the National Institute of Handicapped Research: survey of applicant and peer reviewer opinions.

A mail survey was conducted to document the experience, critical comments, and recommendations of a sample of applicants and peer reviewers who participated in the 1983 grantee selection process conducted by the National Institute of Handicapped Research. Questionnaires were sent to 46 applicants and 36 peer reviewers who participated in seven priority areas involving competition for either a research and training center or a rehabilitation engineering center. Questionnaires were returned by 37 (80%) of the applicants and 27 (75%) of the reviewers. The peer reviewers were generally more satisfied with their experience. Their negative criticism was concerned largely with the excessiveness of the work load. The reviewers were unanimous in stating that federal personnel made no effort to influence their judgments. The majority of applicants agreed that the criteria for evaluating proposals were stated clearly, but they disagreed with how some of the criteria were weighted. The applicants' strongest dissatisfaction was with the time allowed to prepare applications and with the selection of peer reviewers. Analysis of the collective publication record of successful applicants and of the peer reviewers indicated that the reviewers had contributed significantly less to the literature of the relevant priority area.

Persons with Disabilities↗
PubMed2006

Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.

CONTEXT: Peer review should evaluate the merit and quality of abstracts but may be biased by geographic location or institutional prestige. The effectiveness of blinded peer review at reducing bias is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of blinded review on the association between abstract characteristics and likelihood of abstract acceptance at a national research meeting. DESIGN AND SETTING: All abstracts submitted to the American Heart Association's annual Scientific Sessions research meeting from 2000-2004. Abstract review included the author's name and institution (open review) from 2000-2001, and this information was concealed (blinded review) from 2002-2004. Abstracts were categorized by country, primary language, institution prestige, author sex, and government and industry status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Likelihood of abstract acceptance during open and blinded review, by abstract characteristics. RESULTS: The mean number of abstracts submitted each year for evaluation was 13,455 and 28.5% were accepted. During open review, 40.8% of US and 22.6% of non-US abstracts were accepted (relative risk [RR], 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75-1.88), whereas during blinded review, 33.4% of US and 23.7% of non-US abstracts were accepted (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.37-1.45; P<.001 for comparison between peer review periods). Among non-US abstracts, during open review, 31.1% from English- speaking countries and 20.9% from non-English-speaking countries were accepted (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.39-1.59), whereas during blinded review, 28.8% and 22.8% of abstracts were accepted, respectively (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.19-1.34; P<.001). Among abstracts from US academic institutions, during open review, 51.3% from highly prestigious and 32.6% from nonprestigious institutions were accepted (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.48-1.67), whereas during blinded review, 38.8% and 29.0% of abstracts were accepted, respectively (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.26-1.41; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of bias in the open review of abstracts, favoring authors from the United States, English-speaking countries outside the United States, and prestigious academic institutions. Moreover, blinded review at least partially reduced reviewer bias.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2003

Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.

Ethics, Research↗
PubMed1998

[Peer review in toxicologic histopathology: its necessity, type and procedure].

A histopathology peer review already has become an integral part of industrial toxicologic pathology in the USA and Europe. Nevertheless, the review is unfamiliar to toxicologic pathologists in Japan. This report provides detailed information on convenient, useful procedures for peer review in toxicologic histopathology and describes its necessity and type. Histopathology peer review is either informal or formal. Formal review means that the target organs to be re-estimated and the reviewing pathologist's name are stated somewhere in a protocol or study report. The resolution of all diagnostic discrepancies between studies and reviewing pathologists must be clarified, and the review records need to be preserved. No audit trials need to be kept for informal peer review. Based on the purpose of the review, histopathology peer reviews may be classified into 3 major types: "complete", "problem-solving", and a "quality-monitoring" reviews. For a "Complete" review, all histopathologic findings crucial to the conclusion of the study are re-examined. A "problem-solving" review serves to re-evaluate anomalous findings. A "quality-monitoring" review is a periodical monitor of the quality of histopathologic diagnoses at pathology laboratories, particularly in toxicology contract research organizations. The procedures for histopathology peer review consist of 5 stages. At the first stage, the target organs to be reviewed are selected from the draft summary tables of the original findings diagnosed by the study pathologist, and the reviewing pathologist evaluates all selected organs. At the second stage, the study pathologist re-examines all the findings with diagnoses not accepted by the reviewing pathologist and re-considers the appropriateness of these original diagnoses. At the third stage, the study pathologist and the reviewing pathologists discuss all diagnostic differences until they reach a consensus opinion. At the fourth stage, the whole process (stage 1 to 3) of peer review of all target organs is tabulated, including the study pathologist's and reviewing pathologist's diagnoses, the study pathologist's opinions, and consensus diagnoses. At the fifth stage, Peer Review Certification is issued with the study pathologists' and reviewing pathologists' signatures. The reviewing pathologist must share the responsibility for the final diagnoses with the study pathologist. In order to gain greater credibility from regulatory agencies, a peer review performance is best made by an independent external pathologist.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'.

In recent years, the perception has grown that conflicts of interest are having a detrimental effect on medical science as it influences health policy and clinical practice, leading medical journals to enforce self-declaration of potential biases in the attempt to counteract or compensate for the problem. Conflict of interest (CoI) declarations have traditionally been considered inappropriate in pure science since its evaluation systems themselves constitute a mechanism for eliminating the effect of individual biases. Pure science is primarily evaluated by 'peer usage', in which scientific information is 'replicated' by being incorporated in the work of other scientists, and tested by further observation of the natural world. Over the long-term, the process works because significant biases impair the quality of science, and bad science tends to be neglected or refuted. However, scientific evaluation operates slowly over years and decades, and only a small proportion of published work is ever actually evaluated. But most of modern medical science no longer conforms to the model of pure science, and may instead be conceptualized as a system of 'applied' science having different aims and evaluation processes. The aim of applied medical science is to solve pre-specified problems, and to provide scientific information ready for implementation immediately following publication. The primary evaluation process of applied science is peer review, not peer usage. Peer review is much more rapid (with a timescale of weeks or months) and cheaper than peer usage and (consequently) has a much wider application: peer review is a prospective validation while peer usage is retrospective. Since applied science consists of incremental advances on existing knowledge achieved using established techniques, its results can usually be reliably evaluated by peer review. However, despite its considerable convenience, peer review has significant limitations related to its reliance on opinion. One major limitation of peer review has proved to be its inability to deal with conflicts of interest, especially in a 'big science' context when prestigious scientists may have similar biases, and conflicts of interest are widely shared among peer reviewers. When applied medical science has been later checked against the slower but more valid processes of peer usage, it seems that reliance on peer review may allow damaging distortions to become 'locked-in' to clinical practice and health policy for considerable periods. Scientific progress is generally underpinned by increasing specialization. Medical journals should specialize in the communication of scientific information, and they have neither the resources nor the motivation to investigate and measure conflicts of interest. Effectively dealing with the problem of conflicts of interest in applied medical science firstly requires a more explicit demarcation between the communications media of pure medical science and applied medical science. Greater specialization of these activities would then allow distinctive aims and evaluation systems to evolve with the expectation of improved performance in both pure and applied systems. In future, applied medical science should operate with an assumption of bias, with the onus of proof on applied medical scientists to facilitate the 'data transparency' necessary to validate their research. Journals of applied medical science will probably require more rigorous processes of peer review than at present, since their publications are intended to be ready for implementation. But since peer review does not adequately filter-out conflicts of interest in applied medical science, there is a need for the evolution of specialist post-publication institutional mechanisms. The suggested solution is to encourage the establishment of independent 'CoI consultancy' services, whose role would be to evaluate conflicts of interest and other biases in published applied medical science prior to their implementation. Such services would be paid-for by the groups who intend to implement applied medical research.

Conflict of Interest↗
PubMed1983

Peer review of teaching in medicine.

The design, development, and implementation of procedures for peer review of teaching are described. Peer review is one component of a comprehensive system to evaluate and improve teaching in a school of medicine. Colleague observations and judgments are used to augment student/resident ratings of teaching for purposes of instructional improvement and academic promotions. School policies have standardized evaluation criteria and instrumentation while granting departments flexibility in conducting peer review. Three different departmental peer review committee structures and procedures are reviewed. With the emphasis upon improvement, faculty acceptance of peer review of teaching has been positive. Peer review reports have had a positive impact on academic promotions. The inherent strengths and limitations of peer review of teaching are discussed in relation to the literature and to the medical school environment.

Faculty, Medical↗
PubMed2006

Experience of six years of a regional peer review scheme in rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE: Following discussions on peer review by the British Society for Rheumatology, the West Midlands Rheumatology Service and Training Committee established a peer review scheme for the West Midlands in 1998. We report our initial 6 yr of experience, during which all 14 units have been visited. METHODS: A rotating programme of visits was organized. Following this first cycle of peer review, questionnaires were sent to all consultants and senior allied health professionals in each visited unit and to all members of each visiting team to evaluate the process. RESULTS: There was clear consensus amongst staff from both visited units and visiting teams that a peer review visit is worthwhile and constructive. It is a good opportunity for education and exchange of ideas between staff and to promote the multidisciplinary team in rheumatology. Most recommendations from the reports were considered necessary. The most frequent recommendations were for an increase in consultants and therapy staff. Appointing further consultants has been successful. Opinion was only divided on whether the reports were viewed seriously by Trusts, whether peer review should be regional or national, and how to accurately assess the quality, as well as the quantity, of care provided. Staff would support further cycles of peer review visits. CONCLUSIONS: This has been a successful initiative and a positive learning experience for all staff involved. Specifically, it helped to obtain more staff and secure facilities. We recommend developing this scheme and promoting it to other regions.

England↗
PubMed1994

A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether articles published in journals using blinded peer review receive significantly more or fewer citations than those published in journals using nonblinded peer review. DESIGN: Drawing from a sample of 1051 full articles published in 28 economics journals during 1984, we used nonlinear regression and ordered probit techniques to estimate the impact of blinded peer review on citations of these articles in 1985 through 1989. OUTCOMES: Citations of articles. RESULTS: Articles published in journals using blinded peer review were cited significantly more than articles published in journals using nonblinded peer review, controlling for a variety of author, article, and journal attributes. CONCLUSIONS: Nonblinded peer review apparently suffers from type I error to a greater extent than blinded peer review. That is, journals using nonblinded peer review published a larger fraction of papers that should not have been published than do journals using blinded peer review. When reviewers know the identity of the author(s) of an article, they are able to (and evidently do) substitute particularistic criteria for universalistic criteria in their evaluative process.

Authorship↗
PubMed1984

Protection from discovery of hospital peer review committee records.

Integral to an effective peer review process is the assurance that the comments of those serving on the hospital's peer review committee will remain confidential. In recent years, several court cases appear to have eroded this assurance of confidentiality by allowing the discovery of hospital review records. This article examines the legal status of peer review confidentiality in selected states and concludes that the confidentiality of peer review proceedings remains intact in most states.

Confidentiality↗