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.

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 To the problems of difference in interpretations of the plot of D. D. Shostakovich’s ballet “The Limpid Stream”

2020 ◽  
pp. 43-51
Author(s):  
Daria Khokhlova
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Main Tool ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Subject

The object of this research is the plot of D. D. Shostakovich’s ballet “The Limpid Stream”. The subject is the interpretation of this plot in the versions of F. G Lopukhov (1935) and A. O. Ratmansky (2003), as well as peer review on these spectacles. The goal of this work consists in determination of the crucial for the concepts of ballet masters differences of libretto (as a literary foundation of the plot) in the three versions of the ballet, and comparison of perception of the plot in the year of its first staging and at the present. The considered problematic required application of historical approach – attraction of the materials and articles for the period of 1935-1936. The historiographical analysis allowed translating and examining one of the most recent peer reviews on the spectacle – the English-language reviews on the “Limpid Stream” of Ratmansky, presented on the London tour of Bolshoi Theatre in August 2019. The article also utilizes practical experience of author’s work with Ratmansky and participation in the aforementioned tours (performing the role of Zina).The main tool for solution of the set problem became the comparative analysis of the varieties of libretto (authors – Lopukhov and Piotrovsky) of the three versions of ballet “The Limpid Stream”. It is concluded that the first versions of ballet were popular among the public, but aroused negative or ambiguous feedback, which led to the removal of spectacle from the repertoire. The last version is regularly performed in the repertoire of Bolshoi Theatre, including on the tour, being well regarded by the public and sophisticated British critics.

scholarly journals Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Björn Hammarfelt ◽  
Isak Hammar ◽  
Helena Francke
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Publication Patterns ◽  
Novel Approach

Although established forms of peer review are often criticized for being slow, secretive, and even unfair, they are repeatedly mentioned by academics as the most important indicator of quality in scholarly publishing. In many countries, the peer review of books is a less codified practice than that of journal articles or conference papers, and the processes and actors involved are far from uniform. In Sweden, the review process of books has seldom been formalized. However, more formal peer review of books has been identified as a response to the increasing importance placed on streamlined peer-reviewed publishing of journal articles in English, which has been described as a direct challenge to more pluralistic publication patterns found particularly in the humanities. In this study, we focus on a novel approach to book review, Kriterium, where an independent portal maintained by academic institutions oversees the reviewing of academic books. The portal administers peer reviews, providing a mark of quality through a process which involves reviewers, an academic coordinator, and an editorial board. The paper studies how this process functions in practice by exploring materials concerning 24 scholarly books reviewed within Kriterium. Our analysis specifically targets tensions identified in the process of reviewing books with a focus on three main themes, namely the intended audience, the edited volume, and the novel role of the academic coordinator. Moreover, we find that the two main aims of the portal–quality enhancement (making research better) and certification (displaying that research is of high quality)–are recurrent in deliberations made in the peer review process. Consequently, we argue that reviewing procedures and criteria of quality are negotiated within a broader discussion where more traditional forms of publishing are challenged by new standards and evaluation practices.

PCAOB Quality Control Inspection Reports and Auditor Reputation

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert L. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Market Share ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditor Quality ◽  
Informational Value

SUMMARY: In 2002, the peer review auditor program was replaced with independent inspections of audit firms by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB inspections differ from the peer reviews in several key areas including the independence level of the reviewers, the nature and timing of the reviews, and the content and timing of the findings' disclosures. This study focuses on the informational value of the quality control criticisms disclosure included in Part II of the PCAOB inspection reports. After each inspection, the PCAOB issues inspection reports that include a public portion (Part I) of identified audit deficiencies, and most include a nonpublic portion (Part II) of identified quality control weaknesses. Part II of the report only becomes public if the firm fails to satisfactorily remediate the quality control deficiencies in a 12-month period. This study examines the change in audit firms' market share following the public disclosure of Part II of the inspection report. The results find that audit firms lose a significant amount of market share following the public disclosure of quality control criticisms, and suggest that such a disclosure provides a credible signal of auditor quality to audit clients.

Coronavirus: Towards controlling of the pandemic - Indian scenario

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (SPL1) ◽  
pp. 462-468
Author(s):  
Latika kothari ◽  
Sanskruti Wadatkar ◽  
Roshni Taori ◽  
Pavan Bajaj ◽  
Diksha Agrawal
Keyword(s):  
Control Measures ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Medical Treatments ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Infection Control Measures ◽  
The Social ◽  
Asking Questions ◽  
The Government ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a communicable infection caused by the novel coronavirus resulting in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV). It was recognized to be a health crisis for the general population of international concern on 30th January 2020 and conceded as a pandemic on 11th March 2020. India is taking various measures to fight this invisible enemy by adopting different strategies and policies. To stop the COVID-19 from spreading, the Home Affairs Ministry and the health ministry, of India, has issued the nCoV 19 guidelines on travel. Screening for COVID-19 by asking questions about any symptoms, recent travel history, and exposure. India has been trying to get testing kits available. The government of India has enforced various laws like the social distancing, Janata curfew, strict lockdowns, screening door to door to control the spread of novel coronavirus. In this pandemic, innovative medical treatments are being explored, and a proper vaccine is being hunted to deal with the situation. Infection control measures are necessary to prevent the virus from further spreading and to help control the current situation. Thus, this review illustrates and explains the criteria provided by the government of India to the awareness of the public to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

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.

Evaluating slogan translation from the readers’ perspective

Babel ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lily Lim ◽  
Kwok Ying Loi
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
English Translation ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Word Use ◽  
The Public ◽  
Translation Quality ◽  
Sports Events ◽  
Growing Economy ◽  
Survey Questionnaires

Slogans play an important role in conveying information to targeted audiences, and the translation of slogans tends to be studied under the rubric of public-notice translation. Previous research mainly uses researchers’ expertise to evaluate the quality of this type of translation. Yet, little is known about what the targeted readers think about the translation, although their opinions present key information that helps to determine whether the translation has achieved the intended effect. This paper elicits and systematically analyzes readers’ responses. We investigate the case of Macao, a rapidly growing economy where the demand for English translation has markedly increased in recent decades. Public administration bodies in Macao have commissioned Chinese-to-English translation in varied areas such as tourism, social security and welfare, cultural and sports events. We sampled ten translated slogans that were used in the public sector, and administered survey questionnaires (n=130) to both source-text and target-text readers. The two groups of readers’ evaluations, based on the criteria of fluency, conciseness, persuasiveness and mnemonic effect, reveal that the translations are perceived significantly less favorably than the originals are. Readers most strongly disliked word-for-word translations, and pointed out numerous problems with the translations such as ungrammaticality, inappropriate word use, lack of appeal, and unintelligibility due to insufficient background knowledge. This research demonstrates the tangible value of using readers’ responses to evaluate translation quality. It also has implications for translator training, and recommends that public authorities should institute a rigorous quality assurance system.

High cytokine levels and cytokine storm in the novel coronavirus infection

2021 ◽  
pp. 38-47
Author(s):  
Maksim Leonidovich Maksimov ◽  
Albina Ayratovna Zvegintseva ◽  
Lyudmila Yurievna Kulagina ◽  
Albina Zainutdinovna Nigmedzyanova ◽  
Elvina Ramisovna Kadyseva
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Blood ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Cytokine Storm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Systemic Inflammatory Reaction ◽  
Scientific World ◽  
Cytokine Levels ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
Novel Coronavirus

A review article is based on current foreign sources. The level of cytokines in the peripheral blood can be increased in many diseases, but in some cases there may be an excess of their normal concentration in tens, hundreds or more times with the development of a peculiar clinical picture, which is based on a systemic inflammatory reaction. In the literature this condition has received the figurative name «cytokine storm», which highlights an extremely violent reaction of the immune system with an unknown (often unfavorable) outcome. Close attention of the scientific world and the public to the problem of extremely high levels of cytokines in the peripheral blood (hypercytokinemia) was drawn due to the high frequency of the cytokine storm in the novel coronavirus infection.

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