scholarly journals The Peer Reviews and the Programming Course

10.28945/2859 ◽  
2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grandon Gill
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Computer Programming ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Teaching Skill ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Approach To Teaching ◽  
Initial Results

What would happen if a typical computer programming course were submitted for peer review by a research journal? Using a format inspired by typical peer reviews, issues relating to rigor, relevance and course design are raised. In these fictional reviews, weaknesses of the traditional “lecture and test” approach to teaching are identified in all three areas and it is argued that such weaknesses may be inherent to that design—particularly in teaching skill based courses. An alternative approach, whose inspiration is the techniques employed in U.S. submarine qualification, is the proposed and some initial results of teaching such a course are presented.

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.

scholarly journals Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Kwee ◽  
Hugo J. A. Adams ◽  
Robert M. Kwee
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Objective To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Methods Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. Results Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal’s impact factor. Conclusion Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

Editorial | Stop the Academic Bullying: Our Internal Reflections for a Fairer Peer Reviews [Hentikan Perundungan Akademik: Refleksi Internal untuk Penilaian Sejawat yang Lebih Adil]

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Adrianta Surijah
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Academic Bullying ◽  
New Guidelines ◽  
The Impact

Academic bullying in peer reviews is a cultural problem. This Editorial Note is intended to identify the unhelpful comments/critiques and to highlight the impact of unprofessional peer reviews toward the well-being and career development of fellow researchers. We acknowledge that we are part of the problems, and the necessary steps are needed to break the chain of the academic bullying culture in peer reviews. New guidelines for editors and reviewers are part of the solutions to promote constructive comments, as well as stronger internal consolidation throughout the peer reviews process.   Perundungan akademik dalam penilaian sejawat (peer review) adalah sebuah permasalahan kultur. Catatan Editorial ini bertujuan mengindentifikasi komentar atau kritik yang tidak membangun, serta menggarisbawahi dampak penilaian sejawat yang tidak profesional terhadap kesejahteraan dan pengembangan karir sesama peneliti. Kami menyadari bahwa kami merupakan bagian dari permasalahan ini, dan diperlukan langkah-langkah untuk memutus rantai kultur perundungan akademik dalam penilaian sejawat. Pedoman baru bagi editor dan mitra bestari merupakan bagian dari solusi untuk mendorong komentar yang konstruktif, serta konsolidasi internal yang lebih kuat dalam proses penilaian sejawat.

Value of Information through Standardization of Peer Reviews by Qualitative Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kumar ◽  
D. Spencer ◽  
J. Brown ◽  
T. Esmaiel
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Technical Work

Abstract Oil & gas companies leverage value of information to deliver asset performance from their portfolio to achieve their strategic targets. This requires a transparent, consistent, and balanced reporting of any subsurface project's technical evaluation. To undertake such quality assurance and to build confidence in any evaluation, peer reviews are an essential element of the generally accepted industry standard procedure. Peers aim to review work to identify deficiencies due to inadequate technical investigation, recognize cost effective opportunities and advise for any additional technical work. Any international upstream oil & gas company will deal with various subsurface challenges, especially for a new field. A standardization of peer assists and peer reviews by qualitative analysis has been designed, starting with development projects. Checklists help quality assurance in a structured manner by organizing the facts into a framework, and they are intended to serve two main purposes: (1) Assist the systematic review of the subsurface work to request further technical assistance if necessary, and (2) Aid the review of various subsurface disciplines to ensure that the data supports the appropriate conclusions. It is important to streamline the technical assurance process within any organization. Ideally, informal peer assists concentrate on specific discipline interactions before a formalized technical peer review. A set of review checklists has been developed to aid Geophysicists, Geologists, Petrophysicists, and Reservoir Engineers in their review of subsurface projects. The checklist for a field development project consists of 213 subsurface standards in total: 60 Geophysical, 36 Geological, 62 Petrophysical and 55 Reservoir Engineering standards. Each discipline review is then followed by two key recommendations: (1) further work is required or not, and/or (2) a recommendation to proceed to the next phase is made or not. Because of the high level of detail for the analysis of each subsurface discipline, it is recommended that the checklists be used as part of an informal peer assist rather than a formal peer review. For each discipline, a summary of the outcome is agreed between the project member and the peer (typically a subject matter expert). The use of such qualitative analysis is a big step in the right direction to resolve issues of detailed technical assurance before the formal peer review. Such integration of the subsurface approach drives better business decisions. A case study is presented to show how this systematic approach was used and how the results are consistent, comparable, encompassing and objective. This paper outlines a clear and concise method that has been tried and tested and that allows for relevant technical work to be presented at the correct decision gates and thereby allow data evaluation to be done in a more ordered and efficient way, and this would be of interest to organizations that are required to undertake several review steps prior to project execution.

scholarly journals Authors’ Response to Peer Reviews of “A Local Community-Based Social Network for Mental Health and Well-being (Quokka): Exploratory Feasibility Study” (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Shih ◽  
Ruhi Pudipeddi ◽  
Arany Uthayakumar ◽  
Peter Washington
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Network ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Health And Well Being

UNSTRUCTURED These are authors' responses to peer review of ms#24972.

scholarly journals Comparison of traditional lecture and flipped classroom for teaching programming

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Pawelczak
Keyword(s):  
Flipped Classroom ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Work Load ◽  
Traditional Lecture ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Evaluation Feedback ◽  
The One ◽  
Learning Programming ◽  
Programming Courses

Programming courses in undergraduate education seem to be predestined for a flipped classroom approach as learning programming requires a high personal contribution on the one hand and on the other hand, course participants typically start with a wide range of previous knowledge and skills. Within a flipped classroom students can organize their learning phases self-reliantly and put an individual amount of effort into each learning objective. Whilst in a traditional lecture it is not easy to motivate students, the flipped classroom requires students’ active involvement per se. Besides all these advantages, setting up such a course requires a high initial effort for the lecturer. Furthermore, students might prefer a lecture, as usually the work load is higher in a comparable flipped classroom course. Based on the idea of flipping a beginners programming course, we firstly explored the effects of a flipped classroom approach on an elective advanced pro­gram­ming course with a smaller student group. The paper compares the new course design and its effects on the students learning, on the teaching, as well as on the course preparation with the former traditional lecture. The com­parison is based on a survey, the students’ evaluation feedback and on the examination results. 

scholarly journals From peer review to collaborative peer enquiry: Action research for school improvement and leadership development

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-389
Author(s):  
David M. Godfrey
Keyword(s):  
Leadership Development ◽  
Action Research ◽  
School Improvement ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Professional Learning ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Academic Knowledge ◽  
Critical Social Science ◽  
Type 3

School peer reviews are increasingly part of the evaluation and school improvement landscape for school leaders and teachers in a number of countries. This article describes the growth of peer review, particularly in England, and its emergence elsewhere (for example, Australia, across Europe and in Chile). While these approaches provide a useful form of professional and moral accountability, this article identifies ways in which they could go further to empower practitioners through the use of an enquiry approach, combining formal academic knowledge with practitioner knowledge and school-based data. The term collaborative peer enquiry (CPE) is suggested as a way to explore this potential. The article sets out a typology of action research as a form of professional learning (type 1), practical philosophy (type 2) or as a form of critical social science (type 3). Four examples are given of different peer review models, two of them CPE approaches, and these are analysed using the above typology. A distinction is made between some peer review models that mimic external inspections and err towards self-policing, and others that encourage open enquiry and learning. In particular, the CPE models show the potential as forms of type 2 and type 3 action research. The role of peer review and CPE in the accountability system, in leadership development, and challenges for these models are explored in the discussion.

scholarly journals Authors’ Responses to Peer Reviews of “In-hospital Mortality and the Predictive Ability of the Modified Early Warning Score in Ghana: Single-Center, Retrospective Study” (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enoch Joseph Abbey ◽  
Jennifer S R Mammen ◽  
Samara E Soghoian ◽  
Maureen A F Cadorette ◽  
Promise Ariyo
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Predictive Ability ◽  
Early Warning Score ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Peer Reviews

UNSTRUCTURED These are authors responses to peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document