Peer Review

A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluates a grant proposal.

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competences as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.

Professional

Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[]Henry Oldenburg (1619-1677) was a British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[1][2][3]

WA prototype is a professional peer-review process originally recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ish?q ibn ?Al? al-Ruh?w? (854-931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[4]

Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review.[5] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[6] Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[7][8] law,[9][10] engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[11]

Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.[12][13]

Scholarly

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected.

Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals, but it by no means prevents publication of invalid research. Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there is currently a significant amount of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well.

Government policy

The European Union has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy since 1999.[14] In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion.[15] Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.

The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the California Governor signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.[16]

Medical

Medical peer review may be distinguished in 4 classifications: 1) clinical peer review; 2) peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses;[17][18] 3) scientific peer review of journal articles; 4) a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.[19] Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.[20][21] Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.[]

Criticism

To an outsider, the anonymous, pre-publication peer review process is opaque. Certain journals are accused of not carrying out stringent peer review in order to more easily expand their customer base, particularly in journals where authors pay a fee before publication.[22] Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has claimed that peer review is "ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review is biased against the provincial and those from low- and middle-income countries; Many journals take months and even years to publish and the process wastes researchers' time. As for the cost, the Research Information Network estimated the global cost of peer review at £1.9 billion in 2008."[23]

In addition, Australia's Innovative Research Universities group (a coalition of seven comprehensive universities committed to inclusive excellence in teaching, learning and research in Australia) has found that "peer review disadvantages researchers in their early careers, when they rely on competitive grants to cover their salaries, and when unsuccessful funding applications often mark the end of a research idea".[24]

See also

External links

References

  1. ^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Retrieved 2016.
  2. ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001.
  3. ^ Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-851053-5.
  4. ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357-8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
  5. ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Ann. Intern. Med. 118 (7): 566-8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628.
  6. ^ Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Ratener P, Read WA, Morrison K; Weinstein; Ratener; Read; Morrison (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". Am. J. Public Health. 68 (4): 394-401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394. PMC 1653950. PMID 645987.
  7. ^ "AICPA Peer Review Manual". American Institute of CPAs. Retrieved 2010.
  8. ^ "2012 Peer Review Program Manual". aicpa.org.
  9. ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. Retrieved 2010.
  10. ^ "Peer Review Ratings". Martindale. Retrieved 2010.
  11. ^ "Peer Review Panels - Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved 2010.
  12. ^ Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18: 105-108. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
  13. ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (9): 824-829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2.
  14. ^ "Mutual Learning Programme - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission". ec.europa.eu.
  15. ^ "Social Peer to Peer - Online Casino Reviews". www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu.
  16. ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Retrieved .
  17. ^ Medschool.ucsf.edu Archived August 14, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
  18. ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M; Dieckman; Herdtner; Dugan; Roche (November-December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17-20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106.
  19. ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801-8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142.
  20. ^ "(page 131)" (PDF). ama-assn.org.
  21. ^ Ama-assn.org Archived March 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
  22. ^ Couchman, John R. (November 11, 2013). "Peer Review and Reproducibility. Crisis or Time for Course Correction?". Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. 62 (1): 9-10. doi:10.1369/0022155413513462. PMC 3873808. PMID 24217925.
  23. ^ "The peer review drugs don't work". Times Higher Education (THE). 2015-05-28. Retrieved .
  24. ^ "Peer review 'works against' early career researchers". Times Higher Education (THE). 2018-07-16. Retrieved .

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

Peer_review
 



 

Connect with defaultLogic
What We've Done
Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.
Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.
Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.
Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.
Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.


Manage research, learning and skills at defaultlogic.com. Create an account using LinkedIn to manage and organize your omni-channel knowledge. defaultlogic.com is like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.


  Contact Us