-
Journal of Dental Research Apr 2022
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Big Data; Data Science; Machine Learning; Peer Review
PubMed: 35048725
DOI: 10.1177/00220345211070983 -
Journal of Korean Medical Science May 2020Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is...
Peer review is a crucial part of research and publishing. However, it remains imperfect and suffers from bias, lack of transparency, and professional jealousy. It is also overburdened by an increasing quantity of complex papers against the stagnant pool of reviewers, causing delays in peer review. Additionally, many medical, nursing, and healthcare educators, peer reviewers, and authors may not be completely familiar with the current changes in peer review. Moreover, reviewer education and training have unfortunately remained lacking. This is especially crucial since current initiatives to improve the review process are now influenced by factors other than academic needs. Thus, increasing attention has recently focused on ways of streamlining the peer review process and implementing alternative peer-review methods using new technologies and open access models. This article aims to give an overview of the innovative strategies for peer review and to consider perspectives that may be helpful in introducing changes to peer review. Critical assessments of peer review innovations and incentives based on past and present experiences are indispensable. A theoretical appraisal must be balanced by a realistic appraisal of the ethical roles of all stakeholders in enhancing the peer review process. As the peer review system is far from being perfect, identifying and developing core competencies among reviewers, continuing education of researchers, reviewer education and training, and professional engagement of the scientific community in various disciplines may help bridge gaps in an imperfect but indispensable peer review system.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Education, Continuing; Peer Review
PubMed: 32449322
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138 -
Journal of the American College of... Mar 2021To describe the transition from a traditional peer review process to the peer learning system as well as the issues that arose and subsequent actions taken.
PURPOSE
To describe the transition from a traditional peer review process to the peer learning system as well as the issues that arose and subsequent actions taken.
METHODS
Baseline peer review data were obtained over 1 year from our traditional peer review system and compared with data obtained over 1 year of using peer learning. Data included number of discrepancies and breakdown of types of discrepancies. Staff radiologists were surveyed to assess their perception of the transition.
RESULTS
There were 5 significant discrepancies submitted under the traditional peer review system, and 416 cases submitted under the new peer learning methodology. The most reported peer learning events were perception (45.0 %) and great calls (35.1%). Surveys administered after the intervention period demonstrated that most radiologists felt peer learning contributed more to their professional development and had more opportunities for learning compared with the traditional peer review system.
CONCLUSION
The benefits of instituting peer learning include increased radiologist engagement and education. There may be challenges in the transition from a traditional peer review system to peer learning; however, the process of solving these issues can also result in an overall improved system.
Topics: Humans; Peer Group; Peer Review; Radiologists
PubMed: 33096087
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.09.058 -
American Journal of Physiology. Cell... Jul 2021
Topics: Cell Physiological Phenomena; Editorial Policies; Humans; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 34038241
DOI: 10.1152/ajpcell.00181.2021 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Jun 2021
Topics: Editorial Policies; Humans; Peer Review, Research; Professional Role; Self Concept
PubMed: 33358351
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2020.11.034 -
The Journal of Urology Jun 2023
Topics: Humans; Quality Improvement; Peer Review
PubMed: 37042798
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003460 -
Revista Chilena de Pediatria 2017
Topics: Journal Impact Factor; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 29546940
DOI: 10.4067/S0370-41062017000500001 -
Inquiry : a Journal of Medical Care... 2022According to research lore, the second peer reviewer (Reviewer 2) is believed to rate research manuscripts more harshly than the other reviewers. The purpose of this...
According to research lore, the second peer reviewer (Reviewer 2) is believed to rate research manuscripts more harshly than the other reviewers. The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate this common belief. We measured word count, positive phrases, negative phrases, question marks, and use of the word "please" in 2546 open peer reviews of 796 manuscripts published in the British Medical Journal. There was no difference in the content of peer reviews between Reviewer 2 and other reviewers for word count (630 vs 606, respectively, P = .16), negative phrases (8.7 vs 8.4, P = .29), positive phrases (4.2 vs 4.1, P = .10), question marks (4.8 vs 4.6, P = .26), and uses of "please" (1.0 vs 1.0, P = .86). In this study, Reviewer 2 provided reviews of equal sentiment to other reviewers, suggesting that popular beliefs surrounding Reviewer 2 may be unfounded.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 35506674
DOI: 10.1177/00469580221090393 -
Andrology Nov 2016
Topics: Peer Review
PubMed: 28079312
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12301 -
Medicina 2023The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves....
The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Periodicals as Topic; Peer Review; Medicine
PubMed: 36774603
DOI: No ID Found