scholarly journals Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for disinterested reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

scholarly journals Can editors protect peer review from bad reviewers?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael D'Andrea ◽  
James P O'Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Golden Standard ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Editorial Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Peer review is the golden standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to misbehavior by reviewers, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for disinterested reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact.

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 Metascience on Peer Review: Testing the Effects of a Study’s Originality and Statistical Significance in a Field Experiment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malte Elson ◽  
Markus Huff ◽  
Sonja Utz
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Selection Method ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Peer review has become the gold standard in scientific publishing as a selection method and a refinement scheme for research reports. However, despite its pervasiveness and conferred importance, relatively little empirical research has been conducted to document its effectiveness. Further, there is evidence that factors other than a submission’s merits can substantially influence peer reviewers’ evaluations. We report the results of a metascientific field experiment on the effect of the originality of a study and the statistical significance of its primary outcome on reviewers’ evaluations. The general aim of this experiment, which was carried out in the peer-review process for a conference, was to demonstrate the feasibility and value of metascientific experiments on the peer-review process and thereby encourage research that will lead to understanding its mechanisms and determinants, effectively contextualizing it in psychological theories of various biases, and developing practical procedures to increase its utility.

scholarly journals Analysis on the Effects of Quality of Financial Statements, Over GDP Forecasting Models. An Empirical Cross-Country Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-260
Author(s):  
Burca Valentin ◽  
Mates Dorel ◽  
Bogdan Oana
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Causal Relation ◽  
Forecast Error ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
Gdp Growth ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Under increasing macroeconomic uncertainty, governments base their economic policies on high-precision GDP estimates. The models considered based on building-up government budgets incorporate main drivers of economic growth, identified along a large range of empirical studies, mostly focused on economic productivity, factor accumulation, human capital, innovation and transfer of technology, structural changes, or institutional framework. However, there is little evidence related to the impact of accounting and assurance regulation on economic growth. Our study attempts to assess the significance of causal relation between forecasting error on GDP growth and quality of accounting standards, respectively quality of financial statements. The study analyzes the causal relation between country level measures of quality of financial reporting, synthetized by Isidro et. al. (2019), and the measure of GDP growth estimate mean error. Our results confirm a significant impact of quality of the output of financial reporting practice, related to disclosure quality and asymmetric timeliness. The results remain similar, even after controlling for accounting convergence influence. Checking for robustness of the model, we observe the main drivers of one year ahead GDP forecast error are related to institutional framework to issue high quality standards and enforce them properly. The results emphasize once again the role of economic development and corresponding complexity of economic activities and political framework impact on accounting regulation and subsequently on macroeconomic measures.

Creation of a Tool to Evaluate Supportive Care: Experiences from Socioesthetics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damien Giacchero ◽  
Guillaume Buiret ◽  
Cecile Grosjean ◽  
CHARLES TAIEB ◽  
Mahasti Saghatchian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Care Patient ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Published Research

Abstract The absence of a specific tool to evaluate the impact of Supportive care in general and socioesthetics in particular as a rendered medical service is undoubtedly at the origin of the lack of published research based on scientific standards.In this context, we developed one supportive-care patient-reported outcome [PRO] using the multistep methods following COSMIN recommendations. Its construction followed all recommended steps: elaboration of the questionnaire, measurement properties of the questionnaire, internal and external validation, test-retest validation and translation, cross-cultural adaptation and cognitive debriefing. In total, our questionnaire includes11 items. It is scored by adding each VAS, making it range from 0 to 110, with a higher benefit when the score is higher. The Cronbach’s α coefficient is 0.88 for the entire questionnaire. The questionnaire thus constructed is a reflection of the patient's feelings, and it is quite natural that the name The “patient centricity questionnaire” (PCQ) was retained and validated by the Scientific Committee. The PCQ correlated negatively and moderately with the PSS, positively and moderately with the mental dimension of the and poorly with the WB12, the physical dimension of the SF-12 and the satisfaction EVA. Constructed according to the recommendations, the PCQ meets the prerequisite for this type of questionnaire. Its short format (11 questions) and simplicity of use allow it to be used by a large number of people and provides an pragmatic answer by making available to research teams a simple, reliable, easy-to-use and validated tool. It makes possible randomized studies to prove the impact on quality of life of the Supportive care in general and socioesthetics" in particular.

The Impact of Agricultural Environmental Pollutions on the Population’s Quality of Life. The Experience of Kazakhstan

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 161
Author(s):  
Bagila MUSTAFAYEVA ◽  
Saule KALTAYEVA ◽  
Ainura SAPAROVA ◽  
Elvira ALIMKULOVA ◽  
Meruert KULBAYEVA
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Sociological Research ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Production Development ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Statistical Indicators

The purpose of the present study is analyzing the trends of agricultural pollutions and their impact on the health of the population of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The main research methods include a bibliographic review of the literature on the research subject, as well as qualitative and quantitative analysis of statistical indicators of agricultural production development, and the dynamics of agroecological indicators of the Republic of Kazakhstan. To assess the impact of agricultural changes on the quality of life associated with the health of the population, the analysis of secondary data of sociological research conducted by the Environmental Fund of Kazakhstan was carried out. The results of the study show that since 1999 the agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan has undergone structural changes which are characterized by active mechanization, intensification, and specialization. At the same time, the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides, as well as irrigation, the growth of pollution from livestock, and the employment of heavy machinery have adverse effects on water and soil.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document