scholarly journals Peer review practices by medical imaging journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Kwee ◽  
Hugo J. A. Adams ◽  
Robert M. Kwee
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Double Blinded

Abstract Objective To investigate peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Methods Journals in the category "radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging" of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were included. Results Of 119 included journals, 62 (52.1%) used single-blinded peer review, 49 (41.2%) used double-blinded peer review, two (1.7%) used open peer review and one (0.8%) used both single-blinded and double-blinded peer reviews, while the peer review model of five journals (4.2%) remained unclear. The use of single-blinded peer review was significantly associated with a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.218, P = 0.022). On subgroup analysis, only subspecialty medical imaging journals had a significant association between the use of single-blinded peer review and a journal’s impact factor (correlation coefficient of 0.354, P = 0.025). Forty-eight journals (40.3%) had a reviewer preference option, 48 journals (40.3%) did not have a reviewer recommendation option, and 23 journals (19.3%) obliged authors to indicate reviewers on their manuscript submission systems. Sixty-four journals (53.8%) did not provide an explicit option on their manuscript submission Web site to indicate nonpreferred reviewers, whereas 55 (46.2%) did. There were no significant associations between the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers and a journal’s impact factor. Conclusion Single-blinded peer review and the option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers are frequently employed by medical imaging journals. Single-blinded review is (weakly) associated with a higher impact factor, also for subspecialty journals. The option or obligation to indicate preferred or nonpreferred reviewers is evenly distributed among journals, regardless of impact factor.

scholarly journals Testing Open Peer Review for Conferences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Zendel ◽  
Matthias Schörghuber ◽  
Michela Vignoli
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
The Public ◽  
Actual Usage ◽  
Student Paper ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
Survey Questionnaires

Watch the VIDEO.Peer review is a crucial quality assurance step in the scientific method. Traditional single/double-blinded reviewing can result in bias, does not scale well, and offers little incentives for reviewers to do this important work.Open peer review (OPR) challenges multiple aspects of this traditional method: (i) open identity (author/reviewer identities are known), (ii) open participation (involve larger communities in the process), (iii) open pre-review (early versions are published before reviewing), (iv) open report (review itself is published), (v) and open final-version comments (public forum for discussions after the publication).During the H2020 project OpenUP, we conducted a pilot study applying OPR to conference settings. Two separate venues were used to test various OPR ideas, their acceptance within the community and their practicability: the 2nd European Machine Vision Forum (EMVA) 2017 and the eHealth2018 Best Master Student Paper Contest.For EMVA, we tested the novel approaches to include open identity, open participation, open report, and open final-version comments. For eHealth2018, different variations for open identity, open participation, and open report were evaluated.The submission, review, and decision process is handled by a dedicated conference management software (CMS). The proposed OPR workflow could not be handled by existing CMS out-of-the-box. Thus, we created a fork of the popular CMS HotCRP and added support for all experimental OPR workflows needed during the pilot.All pilots were conducted successfully. Feedback was collected by conducting interviews directly at the conference venues and by collecting survey questionnaires. Overall, the feedback for all tested OPR concepts was positive. The open identity aspects resulted in more transparency but some participants feared that this also skewed the reviews to be artificially positive (to prevent repercussions). The open participation aspects were very well received. These concepts may allow for better scaling of peer reviews as we experience strong growth in attendance at many conferences while the number of expert reviewers is not increasing at the same scale. Open report and open final-version comments were seen as positive but their actual usage was very limited.Our modified CMS software has been released as open source code and is available to the public for future use to foster OPR at conference setups.

Repräsentanz von Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen und Pflegewissenschaftlern aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor

Pflege ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Hirt ◽  
Christian Buhtz ◽  
Benedikt Mersdorf ◽  
Gabriele Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Journal Citation Reports ◽  
Journal Citation

Zusammenfassung.Hintergrund: Die Häufigkeit pflegewissenschaftlicher Beiträge aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in Zeitschriften mit hohem Impact Factor gibt Hinweise auf die Teilhabe der Disziplin am internationalen Diskurs. Bisherige Analysen beschränken sich auf pflegewissenschaftliche Zeitschriften. Diese konstatieren eine Unterrepräsentanz experimenteller Studien und klinischer Themen. Ziel: Identifikation und Analyse der Publikationen von im deutschsprachigen Raum ansässigen Pflegewissenschaftlerinnen/Pflegewissenschaftlern in internationalen pflegerelevanten High Impact Journals. Methode: Mittels Journal Citation Reports wurden pflegerelevante Zeitschriftenkategorien identifiziert, in denen die nach dem 5-Jahres-Impact-Factor höchsten 10 % der Zeitschriften der Jahre 2010 bis 2014 ausgewählt wurden. Der Einschluss der Publikationen und die Datenextraktion erfolgten durch zwei unabhängige Personen. Ergebnisse: Durchsucht wurden 106939 Publikationen aus 126 Zeitschriften. Eingeschlossen wurden 100 Publikationen, an denen 114 Pflegewissenschaftler/-innen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum insgesamt 229 Mal beteiligt sind. Insgesamt 42 % sind Beobachtungsstudien, 11 % sind experimentelle Studien. Die berichteten Themen sind mehrheitlich klinisch orientiert (55 %). Über 50 % sind in den letzten zwei Jahren publiziert worden. Schlussfolgerungen: Das pflegewissenschaftliche Publikationsaufkommen aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum in High Impact Journals ist gering. Eine Zunahme über den Beobachtungszeitraum ist zu verzeichnen. Im Gegensatz zu früheren Analysen zeigt sich ein höherer Anteil klinischer Forschung.

A Study of Medical Board Peer Reviews in Nevada

2010 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29
Author(s):  
Jerry C. Calvanese
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Clark County ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Medical Examiners ◽  
Washoe County ◽  
Total Average Cost ◽  
Total Average

ABSTRACT Study Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain data on various characteristics of peer reviews. These reviews were performed for the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (NSBME) to assess physician licensees' negligence and/or incompetence. It was hoped that this data could help identify and define certain characteristics of peer reviews. Methods: This study examined two years of data collected on peer reviews. The complaints were initially screened by a medical reviewer and/or a committee composed of Board members to assess the need for a peer review. Data was then collected from the peer reviews performed. The data included costs, specialty of the peer reviewer, location of the peer reviewer, and timeliness of the peer reviews. Results: During the two-year study, 102 peer reviews were evaluated. Sixty-nine percent of the peer-reviewed complaints originated from civil malpractice cases and 15% originated from complaints made by patients. Eighty percent of the complaint physicians were located in Clark County and 12% were located in Washoe County. Sixty-one percent of the physicians who performed the peer reviews were located in Washoe County and 24% were located in Clark County. Twelve percent of the complaint physicians were in practice in the state for 5 years or less, 40% from 6 to 10 years, 20% from 11 to 15 years, 16% from 16 to 20 years, and 13% were in practice 21 years or more. Forty-seven percent of the complaint physicians had three or less total complaints filed with the Board, 10% had four to six complaints, 17% had 7 to 10 complaints, and 26% had 11 or more complaints. The overall quality of peer reviews was judged to be good or excellent in 96% of the reviews. A finding of malpractice was found in 42% of the reviews ordered by the medical reviewer and in 15% ordered by the Investigative Committees. There was a finding of malpractice in 38% of the overall total of peer reviews. The total average cost of a peer review was $791. In 47% of the peer reviews requested, materials were sent from the Board to the peer reviewer within 60 days of the original request and 33% took more than 120 days for the request to be sent. In 48% of the reviews, the total time for the peer review to be performed by the peer reviewer was less than 60 days. Twenty seven percent of the peer reviews took more than 120 days to be returned. Conclusion: Further data is needed to draw meaningful conclusions from certain peer review characteristics reported in this study. However, useful data was obtained regarding timeliness in sending out peer review materials, total times for the peer reviews, and costs.

Peer Review Metrics and their influence on the Journal Impact

2021 ◽  
pp. 016555152110597
Author(s):  
Sumeer Gul ◽  
Aasif Ahmad Mir ◽  
Sheikh Shueb ◽  
Nahida Tun Nisa ◽  
Salma Nisar
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Editorial Decision ◽  
Article Influence Score ◽  
Impact Data ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Immediacy Index ◽  
Article Influence

The manuscript processing timeline, a necessary facet of the publishing process, varies from journal to journal, and its influence on the journal impact needs to be studied. The current research looks into the correlation between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score). The data related to ‘Peer Review Metrics’ (submission to first editorial decision; submission to first post-review decision and submission to accept) and ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor; 5-year Impact Factor; Immediacy Index; Eigenfactor Score and Article Influence Score) were downloaded from the ‘Nature Research’ journals website https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/about/journal-metrics . Accordingly, correlations were drawn between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. If the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ decreases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ increases and vice versa. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first editorial decision’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. An increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to first post-review decision’ does not affect any ‘Journal Impact Data’ and vice versa. If the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ increases, the ‘Journal Impact Data’ (2-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Immediacy Index and Article Influence Score) also increases, and if the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ decreases, so will the ‘Journal Impact Data’. However, an increase or decrease in the time from ‘submission to acceptance’ does not affect the ‘Eigenfactor Score’ of the journal and vice versa. The study will act as a ready reference tool for the scholars to select the most appropriate submitting platforms for their scholarly endeavours. Furthermore, the performance and evaluative indicators responsible for a journal’s overall research performance can also be understood from a micro-analytical view, which will help the researchers select appropriate journals for their future scholarly submissions. Lengthy publication timelines are a big problem for the researchers because they are not able to get the credit for their research on time. Since the study validates a relationship between the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ and ‘Journal Impact Data’, the findings will be of great help in making an appropriate journal’s choice. The study can be an eye opener for the journal administrators who vocalise a speed-up publication process by enhancing certain areas of publication timeline. The study is the first of its kind that correlates the ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’. The study’s findings are limited to the data retrieved from the ‘Nature Research’ journals and cannot be generalised to the full score of journals. The study can be extended across other publishers to generalise the findings. Even the articles’ early access availability concerning ‘Peer Review Metrics’ of the journals and the ‘Journal Impact Data’ can be studied.

Radiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mapping Radiology Literature in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nosaiba Al-Ryalat ◽  
Lna Malkawi ◽  
Ala'a Abu Salhiyeh ◽  
Faisal Abualteen ◽  
Ghaida Abdallah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Nuclear Medicine ◽  
Medical Imaging ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Vos Viewer ◽  
Literature Mapping ◽  
Link Strength ◽  
Linkage Strength

Objectives: Our aim was to assess articles published in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging in 2020, analyzing the linkage of radiology-related topics with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through literature mapping, along with a bibliometric analysis for publications. Methods: We performed a search on Web of Science Core Collection database for articles in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging published in 2020. We analyzed the included articles using VOS viewer software, where we analyzed the co-occurrence of keywords, which represents major topics discussed. Of the resulting topics, literature map created, and linkage analysis done. Results: A total of 24,748 articles were published in the field of radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging in 2020. We found a total of 61,267 keywords, only 78 keywords occurred more than 250 times. COVID-19 had 449 occurrences, 29 links, with a total link strength of 271. MRI was the topic most commonly appearing in 2020 radiology publications, while “computed tomography” has the highest linkage strength with COVID-19, with a linkage strength of 149, representing 54.98% of the total COVID-19 linkage strength, followed by “radiotherapy, and “deep and machine learning”. The top cited paper had a total of 1,687 citations. Nine out of the 10 most cited articles discussed COVID-19 and included “COVID-19” or “coronavirus” in their title, including the top cited paper. Conclusion: While MRI was the topic that dominated, CT had the highest linkage strength with COVID-19 and represent the topic of top cited articles in 2020 radiology publications.

Editorial | Stop the Academic Bullying: Our Internal Reflections for a Fairer Peer Reviews [Hentikan Perundungan Akademik: Refleksi Internal untuk Penilaian Sejawat yang Lebih Adil]

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Adrianta Surijah
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Academic Bullying ◽  
New Guidelines ◽  
The Impact

Academic bullying in peer reviews is a cultural problem. This Editorial Note is intended to identify the unhelpful comments/critiques and to highlight the impact of unprofessional peer reviews toward the well-being and career development of fellow researchers. We acknowledge that we are part of the problems, and the necessary steps are needed to break the chain of the academic bullying culture in peer reviews. New guidelines for editors and reviewers are part of the solutions to promote constructive comments, as well as stronger internal consolidation throughout the peer reviews process.   Perundungan akademik dalam penilaian sejawat (peer review) adalah sebuah permasalahan kultur. Catatan Editorial ini bertujuan mengindentifikasi komentar atau kritik yang tidak membangun, serta menggarisbawahi dampak penilaian sejawat yang tidak profesional terhadap kesejahteraan dan pengembangan karir sesama peneliti. Kami menyadari bahwa kami merupakan bagian dari permasalahan ini, dan diperlukan langkah-langkah untuk memutus rantai kultur perundungan akademik dalam penilaian sejawat. Pedoman baru bagi editor dan mitra bestari merupakan bagian dari solusi untuk mendorong komentar yang konstruktif, serta konsolidasi internal yang lebih kuat dalam proses penilaian sejawat.

Value of Information through Standardization of Peer Reviews by Qualitative Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kumar ◽  
D. Spencer ◽  
J. Brown ◽  
T. Esmaiel
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Technical Work

Abstract Oil & gas companies leverage value of information to deliver asset performance from their portfolio to achieve their strategic targets. This requires a transparent, consistent, and balanced reporting of any subsurface project's technical evaluation. To undertake such quality assurance and to build confidence in any evaluation, peer reviews are an essential element of the generally accepted industry standard procedure. Peers aim to review work to identify deficiencies due to inadequate technical investigation, recognize cost effective opportunities and advise for any additional technical work. Any international upstream oil & gas company will deal with various subsurface challenges, especially for a new field. A standardization of peer assists and peer reviews by qualitative analysis has been designed, starting with development projects. Checklists help quality assurance in a structured manner by organizing the facts into a framework, and they are intended to serve two main purposes: (1) Assist the systematic review of the subsurface work to request further technical assistance if necessary, and (2) Aid the review of various subsurface disciplines to ensure that the data supports the appropriate conclusions. It is important to streamline the technical assurance process within any organization. Ideally, informal peer assists concentrate on specific discipline interactions before a formalized technical peer review. A set of review checklists has been developed to aid Geophysicists, Geologists, Petrophysicists, and Reservoir Engineers in their review of subsurface projects. The checklist for a field development project consists of 213 subsurface standards in total: 60 Geophysical, 36 Geological, 62 Petrophysical and 55 Reservoir Engineering standards. Each discipline review is then followed by two key recommendations: (1) further work is required or not, and/or (2) a recommendation to proceed to the next phase is made or not. Because of the high level of detail for the analysis of each subsurface discipline, it is recommended that the checklists be used as part of an informal peer assist rather than a formal peer review. For each discipline, a summary of the outcome is agreed between the project member and the peer (typically a subject matter expert). The use of such qualitative analysis is a big step in the right direction to resolve issues of detailed technical assurance before the formal peer review. Such integration of the subsurface approach drives better business decisions. A case study is presented to show how this systematic approach was used and how the results are consistent, comparable, encompassing and objective. This paper outlines a clear and concise method that has been tried and tested and that allows for relevant technical work to be presented at the correct decision gates and thereby allow data evaluation to be done in a more ordered and efficient way, and this would be of interest to organizations that are required to undertake several review steps prior to project execution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document