AIBS News: A report of the AIBS peer-review process for the US Army's 1994 breast cancer initiative

BioScience ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 558-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. M. Schwartz ◽  
D. W. Slater ◽  
F. P. Heydrick ◽  
G. R. Woollett
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Us

scholarly journals Education, Ethics and History: The Peer Review Process in the US

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan K. Richmond ◽  
David Welsh
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Us

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 Preprints are not peer-reviewed and thus did not undergo the established scientific quality control process.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 The Challenges and Opportunities of Peer Review in Health Impact Assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine T Hirono ◽  
Kristin Raab ◽  
Arthur Wendel ◽  
Tim Choi ◽  
Tina Yuen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Initial Development ◽  
The Us ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Untapped Resource

<p><em>Background: </em></p><p>While HIA guidelines and practice standards are used throughout the field, peer review is a potentially untapped resource for HIA practitioners in the US and potentially internationally. Peer review is thought to strengthen HIA practice, although very few guidance documents exist, and there has been little research to date on the efficacy of peer review for improving HIAs.</p><p><em>Methods: </em></p><p>To explore the possible value of peer review in HIA, an expert panel was convened at the 2013 HIA of the Americas Workshop, and an online survey was used to query HIA practitioners regarding their experience with and motivation for HIA peer review.</p><p><em>Results:</em></p><p>Most survey respondents (n=20 out of 26) indicated that peer review in HIA was helpful, and 15 respondents thought a formal peer review process would improve HIA practice. Respondents wanted peer review to be timely and the reviewer to approach the review as a mentor rather than a gatekeeper.</p><p><em>Conclusion: </em></p><p>This paper offers the initial development of a peer review typology based on feedback from the online survey and workshop participants. Better understanding of the potential challenges and opportunities for using peer review in HIA may help to improve HIA practice.</p>

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

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Getting Involved in the Peer Review Process

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Janet Tomiyama
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process

Reference Conundrum: The Broad Definition of Peer-Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Inaccurate Information ◽  
The Core ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Reference Interactions ◽  
Definition Of

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document