Prospective peer review of regional percutaneous interventional procedures: a tool for quality control and revalidation

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 939-944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Blows ◽  
Gaynor F. Dixon ◽  
Miles Behan ◽  
Richard Allen ◽  
Andrew S. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Interventional Procedures

scholarly journals METHOD DECISION FOR DETERMINING SPECIFIC MICROORGANISMS IN PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS: AN OVERVIEW

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gökhan CENGİZ ◽  
Evren ALGIN YAPAR
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Pathogenic Bacteria ◽  
Microbiological Quality ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Eye Drops ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Standard Methods ◽  
Quality Control Analysis

In the direction of microbiological quality control analysis in pharmaceutical products, determining the microbiological load of the product at the end-use stage is very important for human health. Quality control parameters in pharmaceutical products vary according to the structure of the type of product and administration route. In this context, according to the pharmacopoeias, parenteral products and eye drops are classified as sterile products and the other group of pharmaceuticals are classified as non-sterile products. However, non-sterile pharmaceuticals also must have a certain microbiological quality. For this reason, the pharmaceuticals should have a certain microbiological load and should not contain defined microorganisms specified to its type. Since the control of the microbiological quality of the products is important for safety, it should be determined by quality control analysis. In this study, standard methods used to detect specific microorganism in pharmaceutical products were compared. Application steps in standard methods and identification tests of specific microorganisms were examined. In addition, studies that are alternative to standard methods were evaluated. Peer Review History: Received: 5 September 2020; Revised: 20 October; Accepted: 28 October, Available online: 15 November 2020 UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Mujde Eryilmaz, Ankara University,Turkey, [email protected] Dr. Rawaa Souhil Al-Kayali, Aleppo University, Syria, [email protected]   Comments of reviewer(s): Similar Articles: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF THE ESSENTIAL OILS OF FOUR VARIETIES OF LIPPIA MULTIFLORA IN BENIN ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITIES FOR HADHRAMI HONEY ON GROWTH OF SOME PATHOGENIC BACTERIA

scholarly journals Quality control of surgical and interventional procedures: a review of the CUSUM

2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 203-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J Biau ◽  
M. Resche-Rigon ◽  
G. Godiris-Petit ◽  
R. S Nizard ◽  
R. Porcher
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Interventional Procedures

scholarly journals Peer review: the importance of quality control

2006 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 345-345
Author(s):  
Julie Solomon ◽  
Alexandra M Hay ◽  
Peter T Scardino
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review

scholarly journals A Wikipédia como fonte de informação de referência: avaliação e perspectivas

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinícius Medina Kern
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Linguistic Community ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Education Students ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Content Creation ◽  
Digital Curation ◽  
High Profile

ResumoA Wikipédia é citada em revistas científicas de alto impacto, apesar de sua má reputação como fonte de informação. O que sustenta essa aceitação? Em busca de respostas, este artigo apresenta uma avaliação da Wikipédia anglófona segundo o roteiro de Silberger para obras de referência quanto ao propósito, alcance, arranjo, informação dada, acesso e características especiais, com um aspecto adicional: o controle da qualidade do conteúdo. Complementa essa avaliação um relato da experiência do autor na criação de um verbete em português. Em conclusão, a Wikipédia tem conteúdo de alta qualidade, com vantagens como o grande volume de conteúdo em muitas línguas, bem como desvantagens, como a ênfase em tópicos “populares”. Há também conteúdo inadequado, cuja contenção e reparo dependem da capacidade e engajamento da comunidade linguística que a edita, bem como do respeito a seus princípios editoriais. Há oportunidade para engajar estudantes do ensino superior na criação de conteúdos, bem como na avaliação, que é uma forma de “revisão por pares”. O bom uso da Wikipédia depende essencialmente da capacidade crítica do leitor.AbstractWikipedia is cited in high-profile scientific journals, despite its poor reputation as information source. What warrants this acceptance by scientists? In search for answers, this article presents an assessment of the English Wikipedia according to Silberger's guide for reference works, analyzing its purpose, scope, arrangement, information given, access, and special characteristics, with an additional aspect: quality control of new content. An account of the author's experience in creating an entry in the Portuguese Wikipedia complements the assessment. In conclusion, Wikipedia has high quality content, with advantages such as the large volume of content in many languages, as well as disadvantages such as the emphasis on “popular” topics. There is also inadequate content, whose containment and repair depend on the literacy and engagement of the linguistic community that publishes it, as well as on following Wikipedia's editorial principles. Content creation is an opportunity to engage higher education students, as well as content evaluation, which is a form of peer review. Fruitful use of Wikipedia content depends essentially on the reader's critical judgment.Keywords: Wikipedia; Encyclopedias; Reference materials; Digital curation; Peer review.

scholarly journals The Costs and Benefits of "Open Access" Scholarship

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Altbach
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Scholarly Journal ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Review System ◽  
Arts And Sciences ◽  
The World

The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences recently joined the “open access” movement, urging its professors to post their research on an open access Harvard Web site. This movement may well ensure that scholars prominent in the world of knowledge remain a dominant force, while recognition of the work of others may prove to be more difficult. Traditional scholarly journal uses a means of selection, the peer-review system, which has served as the quality control, though this system also is imperfect. Open access, while it seems like an easy panacea, has problems that deserve careful consideration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document