scholarly journals Authors' Response to Peer Reviews of “COVID-19 Outcomes and Genomic Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Isolated From Veterans in New England States: Retrospective Analysis” (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Lee ◽  
Ya Haddy Sallah ◽  
Mary Petrone ◽  
Matthew Ringer ◽  
Danielle Cosentino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Genomic Characterization

UNSTRUCTURED These are author responses to peer review of ms#31503.

scholarly journals Authors' Response to Peer Reviews of “COVID-19 Outcomes and Genomic Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Isolated From Veterans in New England States: Retrospective Analysis”

JMIRx Med ◽  
10.2196/35515 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. e35515
Author(s):  
Megan Lee ◽  
Ya Haddy Sallah ◽  
Mary Petrone ◽  
Matthew Ringer ◽  
Danielle Cosentino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Genomic Characterization

scholarly journals COVID-19 Outcomes and Genomic characterization of SARS-CoV-2 isolated from Veterans in New England States: A Retrospective Analysis (Preprint)

JMIRx Med ◽  
10.2196/31503 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Lee ◽  
Ya Haddy Sallah ◽  
Mary Petrone ◽  
Matthew Ringer ◽  
Danielle Cosentino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Genomic Characterization

A retrospective analysis of peer review at Physiologia Plantarum

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

Genomic characterization of γ-terpinene synthase from Thymus caespititius

Planta Medica ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 77 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
AS Lima ◽  
B Lukas ◽  
J Novak ◽  
AC Figueiredo ◽  
LG Pedro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genomic Characterization

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document