The Review Process

1995 ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Hugh Stamper
Keyword(s):  
Review Process

Subjective influences in the grant review process

1986 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 726-727
Author(s):  
RS Mackenzie ◽  
RE Martin
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Grant Review

Clinical Science in the 1990s

1990 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
M. J. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Molecular Level ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Clinical Science ◽  
Molecular Medicine ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Real Progress ◽  
General Journal

From this issue, Clinical Science will increase its page numbers from an average of 112 to 128 per monthly issue. This welcome change — equivalent to at least two manuscripts — has been ‘forced’ on us by the increasing pressure on space; this has led to an undesirable increase in the delay between acceptance and publication, and to a fall in the proportion of submitted manuscripts we have been able to accept. The change in page numbers will instead permit us now to return to our exceptionally short interval between acceptance and publication of 3–4 months; and at the same time we shall be able not only to accept (as now) those papers requiring little or no revision, but also to offer hope to some of those papers which have raised our interest but come to grief in review because of a major but remediable problem. Our view, doubtless unoriginal, has been that the review process, which is unusually thorough for Clinical Science, involving a specialist editor and two external referees, is most constructive when it helps the evolution of a good paper from an interesting piece of research. Traditionally, the papers in Clinical Science have represented some areas of research more than others. However, this has reflected entirely the pattern of papers submitted to us, rather than any selective interest of the Editorial Board, which numbers up to 35 scientists covering most areas of medical research. Arguably, after the explosion during the last decade of specialist journals, the general journal can look forward to a renaissance in the 1990s, as scientists in apparently different specialities discover that they are interested in the same substances, asking similar questions and developing techniques of mutual benefit to answer these questions. This situation arises from the trend, even among clinical scientists, to recognize the power of research based at the cellular and molecular level to achieve real progress, and at this level the concept of organ-based specialism breaks down. It is perhaps ironic that this journal, for a short while at the end of the 1970s, adopted — and then discarded — the name of Clinical Science and Molecular Medicine, since this title perfectly represents the direction in which clinical science, and therefore Clinical Science, is now progressing.

Success Strategies: Implementing the Professional Performance Review Process for School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-9
Author(s):  
Jill Parmenter ◽  
Sheryl Amaral ◽  
Julia Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Self Advocacy ◽  
Professional Performance ◽  
Performance Review ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Review Management

Abstract The Professional Performance Review Process for School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists (PPRP) (ASHA, 2006) was developed in response to the need for a performance review tool that fits school district requirements for performance review management while addressing the specific roles and responsibilities of a school-based speech-language pathologist (ASHA, 2006). This article will examine the purpose and components of the PPRP. A description of its use as a tool for self-advocacy will be discussed. Strategies for successful implementation of the PPRP will be explained using insight from speech-language pathologists and other professionals familiar with the PPRP.

Sixth Edition: the New Standard

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Robert D. Rondinelli ◽  
Elizabeth Genovese ◽  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Classification Of Functioning ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Impairment Severity

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, was published in December 2007 and is the result of efforts to enhance the relevance of impairment ratings, improve internal consistency, promote precision, and simplify the rating process. The revision process was designed to address shortcomings and issues in previous editions and featured an open, well-defined, and tiered peer review process. The principles underlying the AMA Guides have not changed, but the sixth edition uses a modified conceptual framework based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), a comprehensive model of disablement developed by the World Health Organization. The ICF classifies domains that describe body functions and structures, activities, and participation; because an individual's functioning and disability occur in a context, the ICF includes a list of environmental factors to consider. The ICF classification uses five impairment classes that, in the sixth edition, were developed into diagnosis-based grids for each organ system. The grids use commonly accepted consensus-based criteria to classify most diagnoses into five classes of impairment severity (normal to very severe). A figure presents the structure of a typical diagnosis-based grid, which includes ranges of impairment ratings and greater clarity about choosing a discreet numerical value that reflects the impairment.

Next Up for MC-FP: Chart Review Process

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  
Chart Review ◽  
Review Process

Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 160-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herbert W. Marsh ◽  
Upali W. Jayasinghe ◽  
Nigel W. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Grant Applications
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document