scholarly journals BMJ HCI launches partnership programme for patients and carers as authors and peer reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. e100471
Author(s):  
Dana Lewis ◽  
Philip Scott
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Delivery Of Healthcare ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Care Informatics

BMJ Health & Care Informatics (BMJHCI) is launching a partnership programme, where patients write articles and serve as peer reviewers on both patient-written and researcher-written articles. This article outlines the programme and describes the importance of public involvement in research and implementation in digital health. We think patients and carers should be funded to participate at this stage of research as well as other stages of research. The quality of peer review can be greatly improved by recruiting patients to peer review and improve readability and understanding of scientific literature and to ensure that research and other articles appropriately include what matters most to patients. Just as real-time communication is two-way communication, both healthcare providers and patients should have a voice in the literature, and involving patients in journals is an important step toward amplifying and supporting the balance of perspectives. Patients are the whole purpose of research and practice in health and care, so this rightly includes their role in the publication and review of health informatics literature as well as the publication of their own perspectives regarding access and delivery of healthcare. Patients and carers can provide valuable insights into research articles, and they can also serve as effective peer reviewers. The BMJHCI is excited to kick off the new partnership programme and encourages all interested patients and carers to apply to participate as authors and/or reviewers.

scholarly journals Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at IJTMB

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Ann Blair Kennedy, LMT, BCTMB, DrPH
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Publishing ◽  
Publication Process ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Peer Reviewers

  Peer review is a mainstay of scientific publishing and, while peer reviewers and scientists report satisfaction with the process, peer review has not been without criticism. Within this editorial, the peer review process at the IJTMB is defined and explained. Further, seven steps are identified by the editors as a way to improve efficiency of the peer review and publication process. Those seven steps are: 1) Ask authors to submit possible reviewers; 2) Ask reviewers to update profiles; 3) Ask reviewers to “refer a friend”; 4) Thank reviewers regularly; 5) Ask published authors to review for the Journal; 6) Reduce the length of time to accept peer review invitation; and 7) Reduce requested time to complete peer review. We believe these small requests and changes can have a big effect on the quality of reviews and speed in which manuscripts are published. This manuscript will present instructions for completing peer review profiles. Finally, we more formally recognize and thank peer reviewers from 2018–2020.

scholarly journals Peer Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team ◽  
Deni Firmansyah
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 3 Number 2 August 2021. Weappreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making importantcontributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH.We listed the names in alphabetical order.Abram Pratama, dr., Sp.PD.Adhi Kristianto Sugianli, dr., Sp.PK(K), M.Kes.Prof. Dr. Asep Sukohar, dr., M.Kes.Deta Tanuwidjaja, dr., Sp.KFR., AIFO-K.Dimas Erlangga Luftimas, dr., M.Kes., Sp.GK.Edwin Setiabudi, dr., Sp.PD-KKV, FINASIMFenny, dr., Sp.PK., M.Kes.Ginna Megawati, dr., M.Kes.Grace Puspasari, dr., M.GiziDr. Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MM.Dr. Hana Ratnawati, dr., M.Kes., PA(K)Juwita Ningsih, drg., M.Sc.Dr. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.Kes.Santun Bhekti Rahimah, dr., M.Kes.The, Fransiska Eltania, dr., M.Kes., A3M.Teresa Lucretia, dr., M.Kes.Prof. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, dr., Ph.D.Yenni Limyati, dr., S.Sn., Sp.KFR.Yuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes.

scholarly journals Criteria for Peer Reviewing the Original Articles Submitted to a Biomedical Journal: Intellectual Honesty is the Best Policy.

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (152) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Bishnu Hari Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Peer Reviewing ◽  
Biomedical Publication ◽  
Timely Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Biomedical Publications ◽  
Review Criteria

Peer review - a process of assessing the quality of manuscripts submitted to a journal – is an establishednorm in biomedical publications. It is viewed as an extension of scientific process. The peer-reviewed researcharticles are considered trustworthy because they are believed to be unbiased and independent. The processof reviewing is a privilege and prestige. It is highly responsible, intellectually honest, and difficult job.Being expert in certain area of biomedical science is a prerequisite for reviewers. Young peer reviewerstrained in epidemiology or statistics produce high-quality review. The International Congresses on PeerReview in Biomedical Publication have shown many unresolved issues related to preparation or handling ofmanuscripts by a journal. Therefore, it is vital to identify authentic peer reviewers to ensure qualitypublication, thus, a set of peer review criteria is proposed for peer reviewing original articles. It is useful inquantifying (scoring) the manuscript quality. The proposed scoring system yields three categories ofmanuscripts: the first category is considered acceptable for publication after minor modification by editorialboard and/or reviewers, the second – requires rewriting and resubmission, and the third – rejected. Thesecriteria are preliminary guidelines, and require timely review. They are expected to sensitise peer reviewers,editors, contributors, and readers to move towards greater honesty and responsibility while working withmanuscripts. In summary, if the criteria are used they will facilitate editorial management of manuscripts,render more justice to authors and biomedical science, and improve publication quality.Key Words: Biomedical publication, peer review, peer review criteria, scoring of manuscripts, categories of manuscripts, journal of Nepal Medical Association.

scholarly journals PEER REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 2 Number 4 August 2019. We appreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.Ade Kurnia,dr.,SpKJDR Agung Budi,dr.,Sp.BSBenjamin J. Tanuwihardja, dr., SpP, FCCP.Cherry Azaria,dr.,M.KesDecky Gunawan,dr.,M.Kes,AIFODemes Chornelia Martantiningtyas,S.Si.,M.ScDewi Karita,dr.,M.ScDR.Diana Krisanti Jasaputra, dr.,M.Kesdr Dono, Sp.BDrs. Eko Suhartono, M.ScJuwita Raditya Ningsih,drg.,M.ScFanny Rahardja,dr.,M.SiFathul Huda, dr., Ph.D.Heddy Herdiman,dr.,M.KesJulia Windi Gunadi,dr.,M.KesLusiana Darsono,dr., M.Kes.DR.Med. Muhammad Hasan Bashari, dr., M.Kes.Noveline,dr.,Sp.SDr. Oeij Anindita Adhika, dr., M Kes.Prof. dr. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, PhDStella Tinia Hasianna,dr.,M.Kes,IBCLCSusan Irawati, B.Biomed Sc., M.Biomed Sc.DR. Teresa Liliana W, S.Si., M.Kes., PA(K)DR.Titik Respati,drg., MScPHYenni Limyati,dr.,S.Sn,Sp.KFRYuktiana Kharisma,dr.,M.Kes

scholarly journals PEER REVIEW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 2 Number 2 August 2018. We appreciate every thoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve the scientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.DR.Achadiyani,dr.,M.Kes Prof. DR. Ambrosius Purba, dr.,MS.,AIFOProf. Andreanus A. Soemardji, DEACherry Azaria,dr.,M.KesDecky Gunawan,dr., M.Kes,AIFODR.Guswan Wiwaha, dr., MMHeddy Herdiman,dr.,M.KesHendra Polii, drg., Sp.RKGJulia Windi Gunadi,dr.,M.KesJuly Ivone, dr., MKK., MPd.Ked Laella Kinghua Liana,dr.,Sp.PA,M.KesDR. Meilinah Hidayat, dr., M.KesRoro Wahyudianingsih,dr.,Sp.PASijani Prahastuti,dr.,M.KesStella Tinia Hasianna,dr., M.Kes,IBCLCYenni Limyati,dr.,Sp.KFR.,M.KesYuktiana Kharisma, dr., M.Kes

scholarly journals Protecting patient privacy in digital health technology: the Dutch m-Health infrastructure of Hartwacht as a learning case

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 170-176
Author(s):  
Eric Wierda ◽  
Sebastiaan Blok ◽  
G Aernout Somsen ◽  
Enno T van der Velde ◽  
Igor I Tulevski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Health ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Patient Privacy ◽  
General Data Protection Regulation ◽  
Explicit Consent ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
General Data

Innovative ways of healthcare delivery like m-Health, the practice of medicine by mobile devices and wearable devices are the promising new technique that may lead to improvement in quality of care at lower costs. While fully acknowledging the importance of m-Health development, there are challenges on privacy legislation. We address the legal framework, especially the General Data Protection Regulation, applied to m-Health and its implications for m-Health developments in Europe. We discuss how these rules are applied using a representative example of an m-Health programme with remote monitoring in the Netherlands. We consider informing patients about the data processing and obtaining their explicit consent as main responsibilities of healthcare providers introducing m-Health in their practice.

CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures

2020 ◽  
Vol 318 (5) ◽  
pp. H1051-H1058
Author(s):  
Kara Hansell Keehan ◽  
Michelle C. Gaffney ◽  
Irving H. Zucker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Circulatory Physiology ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Timely Fashion ◽  
Additional Figure

The present study was undertaken to address the concern that author compliance with American Physiological Society (APS) journal instructions to authors for data presentation in manuscript figures is inadequate. Common instances of noncompliance are omitted molecular weight markers for immunoblots and bar graphs lacking individual data points. The American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology ( AJP-Heart and Circ) editorial team designed a program to assess figure data presentation in submitted manuscripts. The intended outcome was to improve author compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and to improve overall rigor and reproducibility in articles published in AJP-Heart and Circ. The AJP-Heart and Circ team invited 37 peer reviewers to participate in a figure reviewer project (FRp). Over a period of five months, 32 first-revision manuscripts were enrolled in the FRp. Each manuscript was reviewed by the original peer reviewers and an additional figure reviewer (FR). Post-peer review, corresponding authors and FRs were surveyed for insight into their experiences. Of the 32 corresponding authors invited, 20 (63%) responded to the survey. In response to the survey, 100% of respondents stated that peer review was performed in a timely fashion despite the additional FR. When asked whether the FR experience had any effect on how one would present data in manuscript figures in future submissions, 65% of authors and 83% of FRs said yes. In addition, 63% of authors responding agreed that the overall quality of their figures was improved after revising based on FR comments. This exercise resulted in improved compliance with APS data presentation guidelines and changed attitudes among both authors and reviewers as to the need for consistent and clear data presentation in manuscript figures. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The goal of the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology figure reviewer program was to improve author compliance with existing APS data presentation instructions for manuscript figures. The result was an improvement in compliance with these guidelines. Time from submission to final decision did not significantly increase for papers with the additional figure reviewer, and both figure reviewers and corresponding authors reported positive feedback in post-program surveys.

scholarly journals Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications

2018 ◽  
Vol 115 (12) ◽  
pp. 2952-2957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Pier ◽  
Markus Brauer ◽  
Amarette Filut ◽  
Anna Kaatz ◽  
Joshua Raclaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Funding Success ◽  
Numeric Rating

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers’ evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers’ ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers “translated” a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

scholarly journals Peer Review of JMH Volume 1 Number 5 February 2017

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Editorial Team
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Peer Reviewers

We would like to thank our peer reviewers for the precious contributions in providing clinical,scientific, and methodological expertise for JMH Volume 1 Number 5. We appreciate everythoughtful review of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to improve thescientific quality of articles published in JMH. We listed the names in alphabetical order.dr.Decky Gunawan,M.Kesdr. Djaja Rusmana, M.Sidr.Fari,Sp.THTdr. Fenny, Sp.PKdr. Hanna, M.Kes., PhD., AIFOProf. Dr. Ida Parwati, dr, SpPK(K), PhDProf.dr. Jeanne A. Pawitan, MS, PhDdr. July Ivone,MKK.,M.Pd.KedDr. dr. Meilinah Hidayat, M.Kesdr. Mia Kusmiati,M.Pd.KedDr. dr. Oeij Anindita Adhika, M.Kes., PA(K)Prof.Dr. Ridad Agoes,MPHdr. Rizna T.Rumanti,M.Kesdr. Ronny Lesmana,M.Kes, AIFO, Ph.Ddr. Roro Wahyudianingsih, Sp.PAdr. Sylvia Soeng, M.Kes., PA(K)drg. Vinna Kurniawati. S, M.KesProf. dr. Wahyuni Lukita Atmadja, Ph.D

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document