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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Implementing a systematic course/clerkship peer review process.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic course/clerkship peer-review process was developed to meet several objectives: improvement of quality of course/clerkship, enhancement of understanding of individual course and overall curricular content, improvement of communication and collaboration between basic science and clinical disciplines across campuses, provision of forum to address curricular concerns of students and faculty, facilitation of data collection for LCME reviews and the AAMC CurrMIT project; and monitoring curricular equivalency at multiple clinical sites. DESCRIPTION: Previously each course had carried out an internal review process. These reviews varied considerably in terms of the data collected and how those data were used for quality improvement. Data and outcomes of the internal reviews were seldom shared with colleagues, students, or administrators. This limited communication discouraged collaboration and led to disparity in curricular content between campuses. A collaborative effort between the medical school's Office of Medical Education (OME) and the Education Council, the faculty governance committee composed of faculty from each basic science and clinical department on each campus, has led to the development and implementation of a systematic course/clerkship peer-review process. Two standing committees of the Education Council oversee the systematic review process. One committee is charged with oversight of the first two years of the curriculum and a second committee with oversight of the third and fourth years. A two-tiered course/clerkship review process was designed with all courses undergoing a limited annual review. A comprehensive, "nuts and bolts" review for required courses was to occur every three years. The limited annual review was based on course evaluations completed by students, collected and summarized by the OME, and presented to the Education Council. The comprehensive review of a required course/clerkship occurred over a six-to-eight-month period. Course directors on each campus completed a questionnaire and submitted materials. To facilitate cross-discipline communication and synergy, a subcommittee composed of both basic science and clinical faculty, principally course directors, and at least one medical student who had completed the course at each campus reviewed submitted materials and had a series of meetings with the course directors, support personnel, and department chairs. Final review reports presented to the Education Council identify issues, concerns, and recommendations for action. To date 11 required courses have completed the comprehensive review process. Simple oversights, significant curricular disparity between campuses, and opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration have been identified and addressed. Student-rated satisfaction has improved for those courses that have been reviewed. DISCUSSION: The systematic course/clerkship peer-review process has been a success, although there was initial resistance to "outside review." We have not yet completed one cycle of comprehensive course reviews but already faculty and administration have a better understanding of individual course and overall curriculum content. Faculty have developed working relationships and are sharing educational strategies across disciplines and campuses, and identifying innovative collaborations. The annual review process is now perceived to lack depth and is under reconsideration.

Clinical Clerkship↗
PubMed1997

[Peer review in requests for subsidy].

There is peer review by scientific journals and by fund granting institutions. The former is usually a very thorough procedure with the authors being informed of the reasons for rejection of the article, whereas the latter often leaves the applicants with doubts as to the thoroughness and the fairness of the procedure. It is suggested that grant peer review follow the rules for scientific journal peer review including information of the applicants of the referees' findings and opinions. Moreover there is a need for an ombudsperson to deal with complaints.

Consumer Advocacy↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Peer review time: how late is late in a small medical journal?

BACKGROUND: Timeliness is an important attribute of peer review because it brings information promptly to its users. This has become even more important with the development of on-line submission and on-line peer review. Small journals usually must rely on regular mail and traditional peer review. We evaluated the review time in a small medical journal outside of mainstream science. METHODS: We analyzed 1,346 editorial requests for manuscript peer review sent from the Croatian Medical Journal to 690 reviewers from February 1998 to December 2001. RESULTS: Peer reviewer response rate was 78.6% (1,057 of 1,346 requests for review) and median review time was 29 days (95% confidence interval [95% CI]=28-31 days). Of returned reviews, 554 (52.4%) arrived on time (before the deadline established by the editor) and the others arrived late. Median delay was 12 days (95% CI=10-15 days). There was no difference in delay for Croatian- and non-Croatian-authored manuscripts, but more reviews of articles on clinical medicine were delayed than those on public health. More reviews from non-Croatian or male reviewers were never returned to the editors. For reviews that arrived late, those from male reviewers were more delayed than those from female reviewers (median, 13 days, 95% CI=11-15 days vs. median, 8 days, 95% CI=5-12 days, respectively). Logistic regression analysis revealed that odds for reviewer's positive response to an editorial request for manuscript review were greater for female Croatian reviewers, who received up to three review requests. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review time in a small general medical journal may be comparable to review times in larger and more prestigious journals. Choice of reviewers may improve the expediency of peer review: editors from small journals may profit from building and educating local peer reviewers, bearing in mind that female reviewers may provide more expedient reviews.

Female↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Peer review in carcinogenicity bioassays: uses/abuses.

"Truth is the essence of science," and "peer review" is a key element in assuring the "truth". Peer review is particularly important with regard to diagnostic pathology in bioassays used for regulatory purposes and approval of drugs and medical devices for at least 2 reasons: (a) If a study is designed correctly and conducted properly, the bottom-line results rely almost entirely on pathological interpretations, and (b) diagnostic pathology is a subjective science that relies on the training and experience of the pathologist and therefore is subject to individual bias. "Bias" can be introduced during the collection and preparation of pathological materials, use of inconsistent terminology during the pathology evaluation and interpretation of the results. Peer review can help in reducing this bias. However, peer review is also subject to bias by knowledge of treatment groups, selection of inappropriate slides for review, in the type of question asked of the reviewers, and in the selection of the reviewers. When done correctly, pathology peer review can be an effective and important part of a process to assure the results of a study, but when done improperly it can cloud the issue and have a negative impact on the credibility of the study.

Animals↗
PubMed1998

Why do we need peer review?

Some nurses see peer review as a threatening experience and put up defense mechanisms to resist change. Others are recognizing it as a popular performance-appraisal strategy that will enhance their autonomy and accountability within their professional practice. But why do we need it? And what are the benefits?

Employee Performance Appraisal↗
PubMed1998

Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: All authors may not be equal in the eyes of reviewers. Specifically, well-known authors may receive less objective (poorer quality) reviews. One study at a single journal found a small improvement in review quality when reviewers were masked to author identity. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether masking reviewers to author identity is generally associated with higher quality of review at biomedical journals, and to determine the success of routine masking techniques. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial performed on external reviews of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology. INTERVENTIONS: Two peers reviewed each manuscript. In one study arm, both peer reviewers received the manuscript according to usual masking practice. In the other arm, one reviewer was randomized to receive a manuscript with author identity masked, and the other reviewer received an unmasked manuscript. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Review quality on a 5-point Likert scale as judged by manuscript author and editor. A difference of 0.5 or greater was considered important. RESULTS: A total of 118 manuscripts were randomized, 26 to usual practice and 92 to intervention. In the intervention arm, editor quality assessment was complete for 77 (84%) of 92 manuscripts. Author quality assessment was complete on 40 (54%) of 74 manuscripts. Authors and editors perceived no significant difference in quality between masked (mean difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 0.4) and unmasked (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4) reviews. We also found no difference in the degree to which the review influenced the editorial decision (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI,-0.3 to 0.3). Masking was often unsuccessful (overall, 68% successfully masked; 95% CI, 58%-77%), although 1 journal had significantly better masking success than others (90% successfully masked; 95% CI, 73%-98%). Manuscripts by generally known authors were less likely to be successfully masked (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). When analysis was restricted to manuscripts that were successfully masked, review quality as assessed by editors and authors still did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews. Since manuscripts of well-known authors are more difficult to mask, and those manuscripts may be more likely to benefit from masking, the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.

Authorship↗
PubMed2002

The history of the peer-review process.

The peer-review process is a turf battle with the ultimate prize of the knowledge, science or doctrine being published. On the one side, we have the writers and originators of ideas, on the other, we have the editors and critics. But it was not always so.

History, 16th Century↗
PubMed1999

The peer-review process of the Journal of Neurosurgery.

Peer review is the process by which scientific articles are evaluated and selected for publication. To clarify this procedure for readers and writers, the authors present a detailed description of peer review at the Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS) in the context of other journals. They discuss the unique characteristics of JNS's peer-review process and how it contributes to the quality of the JNS.

Neurosurgery↗
PubMed2005

Report of an independent peer review of an acrylonitrile risk assessment.

A peer review panel made up of experts in toxicology, epidemiology, cancer mode of action (MOA), cancer mechanisms, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, dose-response, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cancer and noncancer methods, pharmacokinetic modeling and acrylonitrile, met on 22-23 September 2003 in Cincinnati, OH. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an independent review of a risk assessment of acrylonitrile that had been prepared by the Acrylonitrile Group (AN Group). Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) organized the peer review and selected the panel. The panel discussed the toxicity and epidemiology literature of acrylonitrile and MOA information, and reached conclusions regarding its MOA, weight of evidence (WOE) for carcinogenicity, preferred approach for dose-response assessment and risk values. This paper summarizes the discussion and conclusions of the panel regarding the acrylonitrile assessment. Subsequent to the peer review, the authors of the acrylonitrile assessment revised their report and the panel reviewed the revised report. A manuscript of the revised assessment is being published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

Acrylonitrile↗
PubMed1999

Physician participation in quality management. Expanding the goals of peer review to detect both practitioner and system error.

BACKGROUND: The goals of peer review are to improve the quality of medical care and to provide fair review of individual practitioner actions, judged against the local standard of medical care. A new system for conducting peer review was evaluated which included in every case a root cause analysis to identify latent system flaws and a consideration of performance improvement projects to remedy these flaws. METHODS: The peer review committee of the medical service in a tertiary care, affiliated Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, which conducted the evaluation, was familiar with the local standards of care and the systems issues relevant to each case. Four questions were answered for each case: Was the quality of care less than ideal? If so, was the practitioner negligent? What system flaws contributed to the error or to the severity of injury? How could the system flaws be eliminated? RESULTS: Compared with the prior method of peer review, expanding the scope of review identified four times as many system problems (in 46% of cases versus 11%) without changing the incidence of finding provider negligence (21% preintervention versus 25% postintervention). Performance improvement projects were generated in 36 of 89 of these cases during the three-year period. DISCUSSION: Expanding the scope of peer review to include both root cause analysis and performance improvement thinking increased the detection of latent system flaws and the number of performance improvement projects without compromising the peer review committee's ability to identify negligence.

Hospitals, Veterans↗
PubMed2001

Peer review of classroom teaching: an interim report.

This paper provides interim findings from the implementation of peer review of classroom teaching in a large UK University School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. A total of 258 classroom teaching sessions, involving 129 teaching staff (n=129) were included over a period of 7 months. Teachers had two teaching sessions reviewed by a colleague. One reviewer was self-nominated and the Dean of School allocated the other. The paper is in two parts. Part one includes a short literature review followed by a descriptive account of how peer review was implemented. Part two focuses upon individual experiences from a small scale study with data obtained from 14 teachers (n=14) who took part in qualitative interviews based on their experiences of being both reviewer and reviewee. The larger study gathered data from several sources. This paper presents the initial findings from interview data with nurse teachers. Their perceptions form the basis of a discussion, which raises issues related to the experience of both implementing and being involved in, peer review of classroom teaching. Four themes emerged from the interview transcriptions; peer review was initially perceived as a threat; the experience of peer review was a positive one; teachers felt that being a reviewer was an interesting and worthwhile experience and perceived peer review positively when good relations existed between them and their reviewer.

Attitude↗
PubMed1998

A different method of teaching peer review systems.

Students often have difficulty grasping the advantages of the various peer review systems used in scientific publishing. In the described exercise, students are assigned a current study and then write three two-page critiques of the article. The three critiques occur at different times in the semester, and thus the students have differing knowledge bases. The critiques are then assigned to other students for peer review using the double-blind, single-blind, or open review systems. After the submission of each peer review, the class discusses the various advantages and disadvantages of each peer review system. In addition to experiencing peer review, in using this method students also gain an appreciation for the difficulty of judging the merit of a peer's work.

Education, Medical↗
PubMed1980

Peer review checklist: reproducibility and validity of a method for evaluating the quality of ambulatory care.

This report describes the construction and evaluation fo a 35-item checklist used in performing peer review of ambulatory medical records. Scores obtained by using the checklist were evaluated for reproducibility. Ten reviewers, reviewing ten records on each of two occasions judged the records consistently item by item, 74 per cent of the time; 53 per cent greater than expected by chance (p less than 0.01). Pairs of reviewers, reviewing the same ten records, were consistent with one another, item by item, 72 per cent of the time; 35 per cent greater than expected by chance (p less than 0.05). Ten sick call patients were reexamined by an especially trained Reevaluation Physician who evaluated the quality with which they had been managed at the time of sick call. The medical records of the same ten patients were then reviewed with the Peer Review Checklist. The correlation between the quality scores obtained by the two methods were 0.72 and 0.74 on two trials. A correlation coefficient of 0.44 was found between the two evaluation methods when 89 cases were reviewed by a Peer Review panel composed of 10 different physicians. Peer Review Checklist scores correlated positively with scores obtained by using a series of disease specific protocols with explicit criteria. The correlations varied from 0.28 to 0.63 with six different disease specific protocols.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed1970

Utilization and peer review. Medicine's privilege and responsibility.

Peer review affords a privilege for medicine to participate in the shaping of its future. As a corollary, however, medicine must accept the responsibility of stewardship which attends this privilege. Physicians must be willing to participate even more actively in peer review.Properly, utilization review of professional medical services can be performed only by physicians. They may be assisted by informed lay personnel and by computer-derived data. In no instances, however, should judgment of medical necessity be rendered by computer alone. Although an important function of peer review is the control of health care costs, even more important is the evaluation of the quality of care provided the consumers-our patients."Due process" must be an integral feature of peer review. Any provider must be given the opportunity to discuss his pattern of practice with his peers, and an appellate mechanism must be available.Prospective, rather than retrospective review is preferable, although both approaches are necessary.

California↗
PubMed2005

[How to review English-written manuscripts submitted to peer-review journals].

Using some examples, the author describes how to review English-written manuscripts submitted to peer-review journals. One of the most important responsibilities for reviewers is to return the comments to the editor before deadline. Reviewers should not only criticize but also attempt to improve manuscripts. Participation in journal review may facilitate critical thoughts on their own manuscript writing.

Language↗
PubMed2007

Autopsy data in the peer review process improves outcomes analysis.

BACKGROUND: The value of autopsy findings has been questioned in peer review at mature trauma centers. We sought to determine the impact of autopsy data on the peer-review process. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Data analyzed included mortality type (immediate/dead on arrival [DOA]; early [< or =48 hours]; late [>48 hours]), Injury Severity Scale (ISS) score, Trauma and Injury Severity Score-generated probability of survival (PS), peer-review judgment of preventability, and findings at autopsy. Deaths were assigned to a category; then pre- and postautopsy ISS score, PS, and outcomes of the peer- review process (percent nonpreventable [%NP]) were compared. Paired t tests (alpha = 0.05) were performed to determine whether changes in ISS score and PS were statistically significant. All descriptive and inferential analyses were based on cases with pre- and postautopsy data for the relevant variables. RESULTS: Of the 170 deaths, 126 deaths had an autopsy performed (74.1%) and 112 autopsy reports were available (89.9%). Autopsy data resulted in statistically significant changes in ISS score for each mortality category and in PS for the immediate/DOA and early categories. There were also autopsy- related changes in peer-review outcomes for immediate/DOA and late deaths but not for early deaths. The proportion of overall agreement between pre- and postautopsy outcomes for the immediate/DOA category was 94.3% (50/53); three deaths initially deemed NP were reclassified as potentially preventable (PP) after autopsy. Overall agreement for the late category was 87% (20/23); one PP was reclassified as NP and two NPs were reclassified as PP. CONCLUSION: Autopsy data enhanced peer review in immediate/DOA and late death after injury but did not impact peer review in early deaths. Autopsy data were most important to the analysis of late deaths. Targeting autopsy performance to these mortality categories is an effective strategy for centers with constrained access to autopsy data.

Autopsy↗
PubMed2001

Manuscript peer review--a guide for health care professionals.

Peer review, in which peer experts assess the value of a manuscript submitted to a professional journal, is regarded as a crucial step in publication. It is generally agreed that its usefulness is highly dependent on the preparedness of each reviewer and quality of each assessment. With sustained growth in biomedical publications, more and more health professionals are being called on to serve as peer reviewers. An instructional framework should assist pharmacists and other health care professionals in conducting high-quality manuscript reviews.

Allied Health Personnel↗