scholarly journals Peer Review #1 of "Hemogram data as a tool for decision-making in COVID-19 management: applications to resource scarcity scenarios (v0.1)"

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Resource Scarcity

A Big Thank You to our Reviewers in the Past Year!

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 191-195
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Past

Good reviewers are essential to the success of any journal and peer review is a major pillar of science. We are grateful to those mentioned below to have dedicated their time and expertise to help our authors improve and refine their manuscripts and support the Editor(s) in the decision making process in the past year.

Different approach to medical decision-making in difficult circumstances: Kittay’s Ethics of Care

2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107521
Author(s):  
Liam Butchart ◽  
Kristin Krumenacker ◽  
Aymen Baig
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Ethics Of Care ◽  
Resource Scarcity ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Alternative Method

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated advances in bioethical approaches to medical decision-making. This paper develops an alternative method for rationing care during periods of resource scarcity. Typical approaches to triaging rely on utilitarian calculations; however, this approach introduces a problematic antihumanist sentiment, inviting the proposition of alternative schemata. As such, we suggest a feminist approach to medical decision-making, founded in and expanding upon the framework of Eva Kittay’s Ethics of Care. We suggest that this new structure addresses the issue of medical decision-making during times of resource scarcity just as well as pure utilitarian approaches while better attending to their significant theoretical concerns, forming a coherent alternative to the current bioethical consensus.

Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative framework for supporting assistive technology decision-making in Singapore schools: perspectives of in-service educators

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Ee Wong ◽  
YingMin Lee
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Assistive Technology ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Written Feedback ◽  
Technology Initiative ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Trial Experience ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThis study explored in-service educators' experience of using the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (WATI) for assistive technology (AT) decision-making within Singapore schools.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopted a qualitative design. Eight educators across both mainstream and special education schools were introduced to the WATI framework which they subsequently employed as a trial experience for a student under their care. Written feedback gathered from participants was analysed to identify common issues and themes regarding the use of the WATI framework for AT decision-making.FindingsThe comprehensive consideration of a broad scope of different factors, provision of a structured process for AT decision-making, as well as a common language for use by different stakeholders emerged as key benefits of implementing the WATI. Challenges encountered include administrative struggles in gathering different stakeholders together, time and resource constraints and difficulties in loaning AT devices for trial use.Practical implicationsBased on educators' feedback, recommendations to facilitate the adoption of the WATI for AT decision-making within Singapore schools are discussed and considered. This study also highlights the need for greater AT instruction within both preservice and in-service teacher preparation programmes in Singapore.Originality/valueSchools in Singapore currently rarely adopt any frameworks in place to guide educators through a systematic process of AT consideration. It is anticipated that this study will spearhead and drive the adoption of systematic frameworks such as the WATI for better AT decision-making within Singapore schools.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon 10.1108/JET-03-2021-0015

A Big Thank You to our Reviewers in the Past Year!

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (01) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Past

Good reviewers are essential to the success of any journal and peer review is a major pillar of science. We are grateful to those mentioned below to have dedicated their time and expertise to help our authors improve and refine their manuscripts and support the Editors in the decision making process in the past year.The following received out Top Reviewer of the Year award:We wish all our readers, reviewers, authors and friends a happy and prosperous 2018!Matthias Schott, MD, PhD Stefan R. Bornstein, MD, PhD Constantine A. Stratakis, MD, D(med)Sci Editors-in-Chief

Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 994-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lambros Roumbanis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Dynamic Selection ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Epistemic Diversity ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Made In

At present, peer review is the most common method used by funding agencies to make decisions about resource allocation. But how reliable, efficient, and fair is it in practice? The ex ante evaluation of scientific novelty is a fundamentally uncertain endeavor; bias and chance are embedded in the final outcome. In the current study, I will examine some of the most central problems of peer review and highlight the possible benefits of using a lottery as an alternative decision-making mechanism. Lotteries are driven by chance, not reason. The argument made in the study is that the epistemic landscape could benefit in several respects by using a lottery, thus avoiding all types of bias, disagreement, and other limitations associated with the peer review process. Funding agencies could form a pool of funding applicants who have minimal qualification levels and then select randomly within that pool. The benefits of a lottery would not only be that it saves time and resources, but also that it contributes to a more dynamic selection process and increases the epistemic diversity, fairness, and impartiality within academia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document