scholarly journals The peer review at high risk from COVID-19 - are we socially distancing from scientific quality control?

2020 ◽  
Vol 107 (9) ◽  
pp. e334-e335 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Kambakamba ◽  
J. Geoghegan ◽  
E. Hoti
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality

Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control

1985 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
J.M. Brittain
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality

scholarly journals Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Wingen ◽  
Jana Berkessel ◽  
Simone Dohle
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Control Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Quality Control Process ◽  
The Us ◽  
Research Findings

A growing number of research findings are initially published as preprints, a development fueled by the COVID-19 crisis. Preprints are not peer-reviewed and thus did not undergo the established scientific quality control process. Many researchers hence worry that these preprints reach non-scientists, such as practitioners, journalists, and policymakers, who might be unable to differentiate them from the peer-reviewed literature. Across 5 studies in Germany and the US, we investigated whether this concern is warranted and whether this problem can be solved by providing non-scientists with a brief explanation of preprints and the peer-review process. Studies 1 and 2 showed that without an explanation, non-scientists perceive research findings published as preprints as equally credible as findings published as peer-reviewed articles. However, an explanation of the peer-review process reduces the credibility of preprints (studies 3 and 4). In study 5, we developed and tested a shortened version of this explanation which we recommend adding to preprints. This explanation again allowed non-scientists to differentiate between preprints and the peer-reviewed literature. This effect was mediated by the perception of preprints’ quality control and their perceived adherence to publication standards. In sum, our research demonstrates that even a short explanation of the concept of preprints and their lack of peer-review allows non-scientists who evaluate scientific findings to adjust their credibility perception accordingly. This would allow harvesting the benefits of preprints, such as faster and more accessible science communication while reducing concerns about public overconfidence in the presented findings.

scholarly journals Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?

BMJ ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 318 (7175) ◽  
pp. 44-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Goldbeck-Wood
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality

scholarly journals Open Peer Reviews and Blind Peer Reviews: Merits and Demerits

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-427
Author(s):  
Saira Afzal
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Quality Assurance Mechanism ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

The peer review process is essentially the quality control mechanism. Scientific discoveries and advancements have far reaching implications especially in health and medical publications. The quality assurance mechanism in medical journals has to be stringent and flawless. The peer review systems are continuously being criticized, debated and updated. It may be open peer review or blind peer review, both have advantages and disadvantages. Open peer review is performed for scientific quality after publication. It is also known as transparent peer review and public peer review.

Peer Review: Quality Control of Applied Social Research

Science ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 185 (4155) ◽  
pp. 916-921 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Noble
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Applied Social Research

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 Why Should We Have a Periodic Safety and Performance Program for Medical Devices

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Tavakoli Golpaygani
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Medical Equipment ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Electrical Safety ◽  
Leakage Currents ◽  
Quality Control Program ◽  
Periodic Safety ◽  
And Performance

Nowadays, more than 10,000 different types of medical devices can be found in hospitals.These devices used in medical centers and hospitals for monitoring and treatment of patients require periodic safety and performance checking in order to have confidence in their functioning and operation. Physicians need better accurate medical measurements in order to better diagnose diseases, monitor patients and deliver treatments, in this way failure to ensure appropriate measurements will certainly have diverse effects. Safety and performance testing of medical devices in the medical sector is a one of the key factor in improving public health. Acquiring results of some investigations indicate a need for new and severe regulations on periodic performance verifications and medical equipment quality control program especially in highrisks instruments.The metrological reliability of four high risk medical devices, Electrosurgical unit, Defibrillator, Syringe pump and Infant incubator in use some hospitals (privates and publics) in one of the province of Iran according to international and national standards was evaluated. Quantitative analysis of Some parameters that impact the safety and performance showed the amount of the obtained results in some equipment are in critical range and have higher values than standard limitations. General electrical safety evaluations for measuring the patient leakage currents and patient auxiliary currents carried out for all of groups,in some cases the amount of leakage currents were over the standard limitations.Acquiring results indicate a need for new and severe regulations on periodic performance verifications and medical equipment quality control program especially in high risk instruments. It is also necessary provide training courses for operating staff in the field of meterology in medicine and what’s the critical parameters and how they can get good accuracy results equipment.

Peer Review and Quality Control

2015 ◽  
pp. 680-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvio O. Funtowicz ◽  
Jerome R. Ravetz
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review

scholarly journals How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Statistics

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document