-
Journal of Neurochemistry May 2023In this editorial we explain how the Journal of Neurochemistry will embrace Transparent Peer Review. Our goal is to enhance the experience for authors, readers,...
In this editorial we explain how the Journal of Neurochemistry will embrace Transparent Peer Review. Our goal is to enhance the experience for authors, readers, reviewers, and handling editors and to provide a sound platform for neurochemistry publications. This development is part of our ongoing drive to maintain and further increase the value of the Journal of Neurochemistry for the scientific community.
Topics: Editorial Policies; Neurochemistry; Peer Review
PubMed: 36881714
DOI: 10.1111/jnc.15776 -
The Canadian Veterinary Journal = La... Apr 2014
Topics: Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Research
PubMed: 24688130
DOI: No ID Found -
Proceedings of the National Academy of... Oct 2022Peer review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to biases like status bias, which we explore in this paper. Merton...
Peer review is a well-established cornerstone of the scientific process, yet it is not immune to biases like status bias, which we explore in this paper. Merton described this bias as prominent researchers getting disproportionately great credit for their contribution, while relatively unknown researchers get disproportionately little credit [R. K. Merton, 159, 56-63 (1968)]. We measured the extent of this bias in the peer-review process through a preregistered field experiment. We invited more than 3,300 researchers to review a finance research paper jointly written by a prominent author (a Nobel laureate) and by a relatively unknown author (an early career research associate), varying whether reviewers saw the prominent author's name, an anonymized version of the paper, or the less-well-known author's name. We found strong evidence for the status bias: More of the invited researchers accepted to review the paper when the prominent name was shown, and while only 23% recommended "reject" when the prominent researcher was the only author shown, 48% did so when the paper was anonymized, and 65% did when the little-known author was the only author shown. Our findings complement and extend earlier results on double-anonymized vs. single-anonymized review [R. Blank, 81, 1041-1067 (1991); M. A. Ucci, F. D'Antonio, V. Berghella, 4, 100645 (2022)].
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Peer Review, Research; Research Personnel; Writing
PubMed: 36194633
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2205779119 -
Genome Biology Sep 2017
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic
PubMed: 28893305
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-017-1314-z -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jun 2014The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation. Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care,... (Review)
Review
The Joint Commission on Accreditation requires hospitals to conduct peer review to retain accreditation. Despite the intended purpose of improving quality medical care, the peer review process has suffered several setbacks throughout its tenure. In the 1980s, abuse of peer review for personal economic interest led to a highly publicized multimillion-dollar verdict by the United States Supreme Court against the perpetrating physicians and hospital. The verdict led to decreased physician participation for fear of possible litigation. Believing that peer review was critical to quality medical care, Congress subsequently enacted the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA) granting comprehensive legal immunity for peer reviewers to increase participation. While serving its intended goal, HCQIA has also granted peer reviewers significant immunity likely emboldening abuses resulting in Sham Peer Reviews. While legal reform of HCQIA is necessary to reduce sham peer reviews, further measures including the need for standardization of the peer review process alongside external organizational monitoring are critical to improving peer review and reducing the prevalence of sham peer reviews.
Topics: Accreditation; Ethics, Medical; Government Agencies; Health Policy; Humans; Licensure; Peer Review; Physicians; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Quality of Health Care; United States
PubMed: 24914357
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i21.6357 -
Annals of Plastic Surgery Jan 2023
Topics: Humans; Peer Review; Publishing; Peer Review, Research
PubMed: 36409929
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003320 -
The Journal of Biological Chemistry Sep 2019
Topics: Humans; Peer Review
PubMed: 31519762
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.E119.010822 -
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology Dec 2017Peer review is routine among physicians, nurses, and pharmacy staff yet is uncommon in the field of nuclear medicine technology. Although not a requirement of regulatory... (Review)
Review
Peer review is routine among physicians, nurses, and pharmacy staff yet is uncommon in the field of nuclear medicine technology. Although not a requirement of regulatory agencies, nuclear medicine technical peer review can greatly enhance the quality of patient care in both hospital and outpatient settings. To date, detailed methods for accomplishing this task have not been published. 19,688 nuclear medicine studies performed at a single institution over a 5-y period were critically reviewed. Major findings (errors with potential to change physician interpretation of the study or resulting in prescription error) and minor findings (errors without an adverse effect on study outcome or interpretation) were identified and tabulated monthly according to finding type, study type, and individual staff member. The technical peer review method used at our institution provided a comprehensive means to measure the rate and types of errors. Over time, this system tracked the performance of nuclear medicine staff and students, providing feedback that led to a measurable reduction in errors. We present a technical peer review system based on our own experience that can be adapted by other nuclear medicine facilities to fit their needs.
Topics: Humans; Nuclear Medicine; Peer Review; Quality Control; Reference Standards
PubMed: 28798228
DOI: 10.2967/jnmt.117.198473 -
Molecular Imaging and Biology 2009
Topics: Biomedical Research; Consensus; Peer Review
PubMed: 19399558
DOI: 10.1007/s11307-009-0233-0 -
Translational Vision Science &... Mar 2022
Topics: Peer Review; Science
PubMed: 35319759
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.3.25