Quality of research measured by citation method and by peer review — A comparison

1986 ◽  
Vol EM-33 (4) ◽  
pp. 218-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Torkel Wallmark ◽  
Kjell G. Sedig
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Citation Method

Communicating and compromising on disciplinary expertise in the peer review of research proposals

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 897-921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katri Huutoniemi
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Disciplinary Boundaries ◽  
Gate Keeping ◽  
Disciplinary Expertise ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Deliberative Processes ◽  
Quality Of Research

This paper analyses peer review deliberations in four evaluation panels that differ in terms of scope and disciplinary heterogeneity. Based on evaluation reports and discussions with panel members, it illustrates a variety of ways in which reviewers bridge their epistemological differences and achieve consensus on the quality of research proposals. The analysis demonstrates that peer review panels are forums in which communication across disciplinary boundaries occurs and interdisciplinary judgments arise. At the same time, disciplinary gate-keeping and incommensurabilities may set limits on such communication. The comparison of deliberative processes sheds light on how collective judgments are shaped and constrained by the disciplinary set-up of the panels in which the reviewers operate and in which the intersubjective dynamics of the deliberations unfold. Based on these findings, the paper considers conditions that may enhance disciplinary interaction and complementary judgments in the peer review of proposals, and thereby expands the prospects for interdisciplinary research.

scholarly journals Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tine Köhler ◽  
M. Gloria González-Morales ◽  
George C. Banks ◽  
Ernest H. O’Boyle ◽  
Joseph A. Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Competency Framework ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Formal Training ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
University Departments ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Quality Of Research

AbstractPeer review is a critical component toward facilitating a robust science in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Peer review exists beyond academic publishing in organizations, university departments, grant agencies, classrooms, and many more work contexts. Reviewers are responsible for judging the quality of research conducted and submitted for evaluation. Furthermore, they are responsible for treating authors and their work with respect, in a supportive and developmental manner. Given its central role in our profession, it is curious that we do not have formalized review guidelines or standards and that most of us never receive formal training in peer reviewing. To support this endeavor, we are proposing a competency framework for peer review. The purpose of the competency framework is to provide a definition of excellent peer reviewing and guidelines to reviewers for which types of behaviors will lead to good peer reviews. By defining these competencies, we create clarity around expectations for peer review, standards for good peer reviews, and opportunities for training the behaviors required to deliver good peer reviews. We further discuss how the competency framework can be used to improve peer reviewing and suggest additional steps forward that involve suggestions for how stakeholders can get involved in fostering high-quality peer reviewing.

scholarly journals Teaching and Learning Policy Review in Hong Kong and the U.S.

2000 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orlan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Student Ratings ◽  
Research Assessment ◽  
Teaching And Learning Quality ◽  
Quality Of Research

The Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) in hugely expanded universities in Britain and Hong Kong attempt mammoth scale ratings of "quality of research." If peer review on that scale is feasible for "quality of research," is it less so for "quality of teaching"? The lessons of the Hong Kong Teaching and Learning Quality Process Reviews (TLQPRs), of recent studies on the influence of grade expectation and workload on student ratings, of attempts to employ agency theory both to improve teaching quality and raise student ratings, and of institutional attempts to refine the peer review process, all suggest that we can "put teaching on the same footing as research" and include professional regard for teaching content and objectives, as well as student ratings of effectiveness and personality appeal, in the process.

Analysis of Reading, Reference and Information Management on the Quality of Scientific Writing

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69
Author(s):  
Muhammad Zarlis ◽  
Sherly Astuti ◽  
Muhammad Salamuddin
Keyword(s):  
Information Management ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Management Skill ◽  
Library Search ◽  
Important Thing ◽  
Reading Material ◽  
Quality Of Research

In education, for educational instruments scientific writing is a very important thing. It requires an information management skill, information management is a library search, which can be done through a computer and guided by the internet. It can also be through the quality of reading used as a reference for scientific writing. In addition, in producing a paper also must know the management of writing, not only required to pay attention to the rules of standard language, but also must be able to convey ideas and ideas well and meet scientific criteria, such as making a quote or reference list used. This paper was written with the aim of improving the quality of research through reading material, making notes and avoiding plagiarism, references using the Harvard system for journals, books, and articles. Management of citing articles either CD or internet, writing, editing, storing references electronically, writing bibliography, and quotations.

An experience of performing spirometry by trained general practitioners

2020 ◽  
pp. 34-36
Author(s):  
M. A. Pokhaznikova ◽  
E. A. Andreeva ◽  
O. Yu. Kuznetsova
Keyword(s):  
General Practitioners ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Study Research ◽  
The Poor ◽  
Quality Of Research ◽  
Forced Expiratory Maneuver ◽  
Maximal Effort

The article discusses the experience of teaching and conducting spirometry of general practitioners as part of the RESPECT study (RESearch on the PrEvalence and the diagnosis of COPD and its Tobacco-related aetiology). A total of 33 trained in spirometry general practitioners performed a study of 3119 patients. Quality criteria met 84.1% of spirometric studies. The analysis of the most common mistakes made by doctors during the forced expiratory maneuver is included. The most frequent errors were expiration exhalation of less than 6s (54%), non-maximal effort throughout the test and lack of reproducibility (11.3%). Independent predictors of poor spirogram quality were male gender, obstruction (FEV1 /FVC<0.7), and the center where the study was performed. The number of good-quality spirograms ranged from 96.1% (95% CI 83.2–110.4) to 59.8% (95% CI 49.6–71.4) depending on the center. Subsequently, an analysis of the reasons behind the poor quality of research in individual centers was conducted and the identified shortcomings were eliminated. The poor quality of the spirograms was associated either with the errors of the doctors who undertook the study or with the technical malfunctions of the spirometer.

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

Editorial peer-review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
TO Jefferson ◽  
P Alderson ◽  
F Davidoff ◽  
E Wager
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Quality Of Reports

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Logistics in 2020

Logistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Logistics maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Brain Sciences in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Brain Sciences

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Brain Sciences maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Dairy in 2020

Dairy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-72
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Dairy maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document