Development of clinical engineering standards of practice and peer review: a process overview

Author(s):  
T. McLeod ◽  
T. Easty ◽  
W. Gentles
Author(s):  
Baki Karaböce ◽  
Hüseyin Okan Durmuş ◽  
Emel Çetin ◽  
Nilgün Tokman

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-42
Author(s):  
Kathryn A. Kaiser ◽  
Michelle Urberg ◽  
Maria Johnsson ◽  
Jennifer Kemp ◽  
Alice Meadows ◽  
...  

Abstract The Metadata 2020 initiative is an ongoing effort to bring various scholarly communications stakeholder groups together to promote principles and standards of practice to improve the quality of metadata. To understand the perspectives and practices regarding metadata of the main stakeholder groups (librarians, publishers, researchers and repository managers), we conducted a survey during summer 2019. The survey content was generated by representatives from the stakeholder groups. A link to an online survey (17 or 18 questions depending on the group) was distributed through multiple social media, listserv, and blog outlets. Responses were anonymous, with an optional entry for names and email addresses for those who were willing to be contacted later. Complete responses (N=211; 87 librarians, 27 publishers, 48 repository managers, and 49 researchers) representing 23 countries on four continents were analyzed and summarized for thematic content and ranking of awareness and practices. Across the stakeholder groups, the level of awareness and usage of metadata methods and practices was highly variable. Clear gaps across the groups point to the need for consolidation of schema and practices, as well as broad educational efforts in order to increase knowledge and implementation of metadata in scholarly communications. Peer Review https://publons.com/publon/10.1162/qss_a_00133


2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 242-248
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Jane Martin ◽  
Madeleine R. Finneran

Author(s):  
Michael M. Burgess

The medical profession is in a crisis due to the increasing awareness of pluralism and the rejection of “community standards of practice” as a principle ethically and legally sufficient to govern medical practice. Historically, professional peer-review and appeals to local medical community standards of practice have been the basis for managing legal and ethical disputes. It was rare for patients or courts to challenge the authority and autonomy of the profession. This was the legacy of an earlier, less pluralistic society. Monolithic societies have a common or authoritative set of moral values, usually founded on a religious structure and institution, so that the moral limits of any type of practice, including medical practice, are well understood. We no longer live in such a society.


Author(s):  
Debi A. LaPlante ◽  
Heather M. Gray ◽  
Pat M. Williams ◽  
Sarah E. Nelson

Abstract. Aims: To discuss and review the latest research related to gambling expansion. Method: We completed a literature review and empirical comparison of peer reviewed findings related to gambling expansion and subsequent gambling-related changes among the population. Results: Although gambling expansion is associated with changes in gambling and gambling-related problems, empirical studies suggest that these effects are mixed and the available literature is limited. For example, the peer review literature suggests that most post-expansion gambling outcomes (i. e., 22 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 64.7 %) indicate no observable change or a decrease in gambling outcomes, and a minority (i. e., 12 of 34 possible expansion outcomes; 35.3 %) indicate an increase in gambling outcomes. Conclusions: Empirical data related to gambling expansion suggests that its effects are more complex than frequently considered; however, evidence-based intervention might help prepare jurisdictions to deal with potential consequences. Jurisdictions can develop and evaluate responsible gambling programs to try to mitigate the impacts of expanded gambling.


1994 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terence M. Murphy ◽  
Jessica M. Utts

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document