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 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.

Many variations exist in editorial peer review practices in clinical medicine journals. These practices will become more crucial as medical journals make more of their contents available via the World Wide Web. This paper explores five fundamental dimensions of editorial peer review variations: (1) the extent to which manuscripts are subjected to peer review; (2) the sequence of decision points in the peer review process; (3) blinding practices; (4) acceptance rates for submitted manuscripts; and (5) guidelines stating editors' expectations of reviewers. Variations in editorial peer review practices make it difficult to define a "peer reviewed journal" in clinical medicine. Research in this relatively new area of inquiry has not established the relative strengths of each variation in relation to a journal's quality.

Clinical Medicine↗
PubMed1993

The attitudes of family physicians toward the peer review process.

We conducted a study to determine family physicians' attitudes and perceptions toward current peer review practices, and to discover if family physicians, general surgeons, and hospital-based physicians view the process differently. A survey instrument measured perceptions of physicians on the following four areas of the peer review process: (1) how peer reviews are administered, (2) the educational value of peer reviews, (3) the performance of peer review committees, and (4) the effect of the peer review process on physician morale. The survey was mailed to all 3528 practicing physicians who were members of a state medical society. A subgroup of 1695 family physicians, general surgeons, and hospital-based physicians was used for this study, of whom 774 (46%) responded to the questionnaire. Over one half of the family physicians responded negatively toward the peer review process on all items of the survey, with over 70% dissatisfied on five of the 17 items. Family physicians, general surgeons, and hospital-based physicians viewed the peer review process differently in the four areas measured. We found statistically significant differences of opinions regarding present peer review practices among the specialties cited. However, the overall dissatisfaction of the specialty groups studied may suggest that the concern resides more with the profession at large than with any one medical specialty group.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.

A growing body of research challenges the inter-rater reliability of peer reviewers and the value of reviewer training or blinding in improving the quality of manuscript reviews, but double-blinded peer review of papers remains a relatively unexamined standard for nursing journals. Using data from a larger emailed survey, the views of 88 nurse editors on peer review were analyzed using content analysis. The majority of nurse editors reported that blinding was important in peer review, to maintain objectivity and avoid negative personal or professional consequences. The minority who saw potential benefits of open review valued increased transparency in the reviewing and editorial decision-making process. An excellent review was viewed as containing specific instructions on how the deficits in a manuscript might be remedied. Common weaknesses of reviews were lack of specificity and inappropriate focus. Virtually all editors provided some form of preparation or guidance to reviewers. Peer review has an impact on nurses' workload and careers, and training in writing and critique should be included in nursing education.

Attitude↗
PubMed1990

The evolution of editorial peer review.

Practically no historical accounts of the evolution of peer review exist. Biomedical journals appeared in the 19th century as personal organs, following the model of more general journalism. Journal editors viewed themselves primarily as educators. The practice of editorial peer reviewing did not become general until sometime after World War II. Contrary to common assumption, editorial peer review did not grow out of or interact with grant peer review. Editorial peer review procedures did not spread in an orderly way; they were not developed from editorial boards and passed on from journal to journal. Instead, casual referring out of articles on an individual basis may have occurred at any time, beginning in the early to mid-19th century. Institutionalization of the process, however, took place mostly in the 20th century, either to handle new problems in the numbers of articles submitted or to meet the demands for expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world.

History, 19th Century↗
PubMed2002

Peer review of manuscripts.

Analysis of the reproducibility of peer review of manuscripts by means of the kappa statistic is fatally flawed from the point of view of statistical theory. An alternative, simple, method of analysis is proposed. On this basis, agreement among reviewers for the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience is at least as good as that reported recently for other clinical neuroscience journals. Nevertheless, a broad review of peer review processes demonstrates that they are far from satisfactory. Might electronic publishing of scientific articles provide a solution?

Humans↗
PubMed2006

The planning and implementation of a faculty peer review teaching project.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the planning and implementation of a pilot peer review system, assess factors related to acceptance by faculty and administration, and suggest ways to increase the number of faculty members reviewed and serving as reviewers. DESIGN: A faculty-driven process was used to create a model for peer review. Faculty members completed a survey instrument with open-ended responses for indicating reasons for participation or nonparticipation, components of the evaluation process that they would like to see changed, and what they found most helpful or insightful about the process of peer review. ASSESSMENT: Faculty acceptance of and satisfaction with the peer review process is attributed to the development and implementation process being faculty driven and to peer reviews not being required for promotion and tenure decisions. Faculty members who were reviewed stated that the process was helpful and insightful and would lead to better teaching and learning. CONCLUSION: A successful faculty peer-review process was created and implemented within 6 weeks. All of the faculty members who chose to be peer reviewed or serve as reviewers reported satisfaction in gaining insights into their teaching, learning innovative approaches to their teaching, and gaining confidence in their teaching pedagogy. Techniques for achieving 100% participation in the peer review process should be addressed in the future.

Faculty↗
PubMed1996

Peer review in a shared governance model.

Peer review is a process by which professional nurses measure the quality of nursing practice in relation to established standards of practice. Shared governance provides a framework in which professional nurses self-regulate practice in their domain. Quality of nursing care is assessed through the peer review process in a shared governance model. This article describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a peer review process and tool designed for postanesthesia nursing practice.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1995

Peer review of nursing research proposals.

The grant review process that operationalizes peer review for the critique, scoring, approval, and selection of research grants for funding may intimidate a novice reviewer. This article describes the peer review panel and process of grant review, specifies the role and responsibilities of the reviewer in the review session, and presents considerations for the evaluation of proposals and the preparation of a written critique. A sample critique is provided.

Nursing Research↗
PubMed1998

Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether attendance at a voluntary training workshop improves quality ratings of medical journal peer reviewers. METHODS: Peer reviewers for Annals of Emergency Medicine who completed two or more reviews during the 20 months before or the 20 months after October 1995 were eligible. Reviews were routinely rated by editors on a subjective 5-point quality scale. Comparisons were made between reviewers who chose to attend a 4-hour workshop on peer review sponsored by the journal in 1995 (attendees) and 2 groups of reviewers who did not attend: controls matched for review quality and number of reviews completed before the workshop, and unmatched controls. Guest reviewers were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 298 reviewers completed 1906 reviews before the workshop and 2,194 after the workshop; 2,117 of these reviews were rated by editors. Forty-five attendees participated in the workshop, 39 of whom had sufficient ratings for analysis. Matched controls were almost identical in performance to attendees, but unmatched controls had performed fewer reviews and had lower average ratings before the workshop. There was no significant change in any performance measurement after the workshop, including average quality rating, percent change in quality rating, odds ratio for recommending acceptance, and odds ratio for congruence with editor's decision. CONCLUSION: In a self-selected group of experienced reviewers who attended a 4-hour workshop on peer review, no effect could be identified in subsequent performance as measured by editors' quality ratings or reviewer performance statistics.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed1994

Peer review in journals indexed in Index Medicus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether peer review policies are published in English-language journals indexed in Index Medicus and, secondarily, to obtain information on the peer review practices of such journals. DESIGN: Examined one issue of a sample of all journal titles written in English and indexed in Index Medicus, and all indexed English-language journals in four subject fields. A questionnaire was sent to the editors of journals in the subject fields requesting information on their peer review practices. SETTING: Journals received at the National Library of Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Editors of journals in four subject fields. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Existence of a printed statement of the peer review process for manuscripts. RESULTS: Although the editors queried in the four subject fields indicated that overall, 56% to 65% of the articles were peer reviewed, clear statements about their peer review practices were not found in half of their journals or in the overall sample. CONCLUSIONS: Editors should publish clear statements of the peer review process followed for each type of article published in their journals.

MEDLARS↗
PubMed2002

Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

CONTEXT: The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. METHODS: To identify outcome measures used to assess editorial peer review as performed by biomedical journals, we analyzed studies identified from 2 systematic reviews that measured the effects of editorial peer review on the quality of the output (ie, published articles) or of the process itself (eg, reviewers' comments). RESULTS: Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes. CONCLUSIONS: Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1993

MMA peer review program to monitor quality of care.

The MMA believes its peer review program is fundamental to organized medicine's desire to monitor the profession while simultaneously improving the quality of care provided to Minnesota patients. The association also recognizes the need to assist outside organizations with peer review. The overall goal of the peer review program will be to assure the public that the MMA is willing and able to address public complaints and organizational concerns regarding physicians who do not comply with accepted practice and professional ethics. Physicians interested in participating in either the internal or external peer review program should submit a letter detailing their experience in peer review activities, describing their professional experience, and listing their eligibility or board certifications. The MMA will be contacting interested and qualified physicians in the near future to organize the committees responsible for peer review.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

Making peer review statistically accountable.

BACKGROUND: The peer review process used in most hospitals is largely anecdotal, leading to criticisms about the objectivity of the methods employed. METHODS: The results of 1,500 consecutive abdominal operations performed by general surgeons working at three hospitals in a single community were reviewed. The outcome profile of each surgeon was compared statistically to the cumulative profile of the surgical community with adjustments for physiologic status of the patient, difficulty of the operation, and indications for surgery. RESULTS: A problem surgeon was thus identified whose poor results were significantly different from the rest of the surgical community and could not be explained on the basis of unfavorable patient mix or complexity of the procedures undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical comparison of a surgeon's outcome profile with those of his colleagues working in the same practice environment is suggested as an approach to the task of peer review that might prove preferable to the usual retrospective review of problem cases.

Abdomen↗
PubMed1998

Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Little research has been conducted into the quality of peer review and, in particular, the effects of blinding peer reviewers to authors' identities or masking peer reviewers' identities. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether concealing authors' identities from reviewers (blinding) and/or revealing the reviewer's identity to a coreviewer (unmasking) affects the quality of reviews, the time taken to carry out reviews, and the recommendation regarding publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized trial of 527 consecutive manuscripts submitted to BMJ, which were randomized and each sent to 2 peer reviewers. INTERVENTIONS: Manuscripts were randomized as to whether the reviewers were unmasked, masked, or uninformed that a study was taking place. Two reviewers for each manuscript were randomized to receive either a blinded or an unblinded version. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean total quality score, time taken to carry out the review, and recommendation regarding publication. RESULTS: Of the 527 manuscripts entered into the study, 467 (89%) were successfully randomized and followed up. The mean total quality score was 2.87. There was little or no difference in review quality between the masked and unmasked groups (scores of 2.82 and 2.96, respectively) and between the blinded and unblinded groups (scores of 2.87 and 2.90, respectively). There was no apparent Hawthorne effect. There was also no significant difference between groups in the recommendations regarding publication or time taken to review. CONCLUSIONS: Blinding and unmasking made no editorially significant difference to review quality, reviewers' recommendations, or time taken to review. Other considerations should guide decisions as to the form of peer review adopted by a journal, and improvements in the quality of peer review should be sought via other means.

Authorship↗
PubMed1975

Peer review & record review systems.

This paper describes the implementation of both peer review and record review systems as initiated at the University Hospitals of Cleveland occupational therapy department. Peer review evaluations can be used to ascertain a therapist's need for continuing education in a specific area, to evaluate and improve standards of practice, to gather statistics on professional objectives, and to develop Professional Standards Review Organization criteria. The system of peer review stimulated an improvement in documentation of services provided by occupational therapists, as well as in critical self-awareness of individual strengths and weaknesses. A separate method of record review was instituted to provide a basis for evaluating individual performance for either recognition or disciplinary purposes. Unlike peer review, record review results become incorporated into the therapist's personnel record.

Hospital Departments↗
PubMed2004

[Further development of peer-review-procedures in medical rehabilitation].

In 2002, the peer review for the somatic indications of medical rehabilitation was further developed. This process was aimed at adjusting the peer review checklist to the "Guide for the Uniform Medical Report of the Statutory German Pension Insurance Scheme" ("Leitfaden zum einheitlichen Entlassungsbericht der Rentenversicherung"), at harmonising the peer review with the version used in the quality assurance programme of the German health insurance and at reducing requirements by focusing on criteria relevant in the individual case. This paper reports on the consensus process carried out and outlines the modifications of the peer review procedure.

Germany↗
PubMed1998

Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.

CONTEXT: Many journals provide peer reviewers with written instructions regarding review criteria, such as the originality of results, but little research has been done to investigate ways to improve or facilitate the peer review task. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value that peer reviewers place on receipt of supplemental materials (eg, abstracts of related papers and preprints of related unpublished manuscripts). DESIGN: Questionnaire survey sent to all 733 peer reviewers recruited by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute to review 356 manuscripts consecutively sent out for review from February 24, 1997, through January 16, 1998. The inclusion of supplemental materials with manuscript review packages was optional. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The peer reviewers' assessment of the actual or potential usefulness of supplemental materials on the performance of peer review. RESULTS: A total of 481 (66%) of 733 questionnaires were returned. Of the 471 respondents' questionnaires that could be used, 217 (46%) indicated that they received abstracts, and 44 (10%) of 458 respondents indicated that they received preprints. Higher proportions of peer reviewers who received supplemental materials than those who had not received them felt that they were (or would be) useful to them when reviewing the manuscript (63% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57%-69%] vs 45% [95% CI, 38%-52%]; P<.001) and to the peer review process in general (80% [95% CI, 75%-85%] vs 64% [95% CI, 58%-70%]; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents indicated that supplemental materials helped (or would have helped) them evaluate manuscripts and valued them more highly when they actually received them.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed1991

A peer review quality assurance program in drug information.

The development and implementation of a peer review quality assurance program for a drug information service is described. Eight drug information centres across Canada initially agreed to participate as peer reviewers. Critera were developed to select drug information requests that would qualify for the program. Peer review responses were compared to the centre's response by a panel of four drug information pharmacists. Thirteen of 14 requests sent to peer reviewers were returned and there was agreement between the conclusions and recommendations provided in the responses by our drug information centre and the peer review pharmacist in 11 cases. Peer reviewer pharmacists tended to prepare more in depth responses. This represents the first report of a peer review quality assurance program for a drug information service.

Canada↗