Lompat ke konten Lompat ke sidebar Lompat ke footer
Beranda / Who Is Not Qualified to Perform Peer Review?

Who Is Not Qualified to Perform Peer Review?

Posting Komentar

Evaluation of piece of work by 1 or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work

For Wikipedia'southward Peer Review area, run across WP:PR.

A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluating a grant proposal

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more than people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions equally a grade of cocky-regulation by qualified members of a profession inside the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is frequently used to make up one's mind an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized past the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the action occurs, e.g., medical peer review. It can also be used equally a teaching tool to aid students ameliorate writing assignments.

Professional [edit]

Professional peer review focuses on the functioning of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[ane] Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen every bit the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[2] [iii] [iv]

A paradigm professional peer-review process was recommended in the Ethics of the Dr. written past Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting dr. had to make indistinguishable notes of a patient'south condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the medico were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[5]

Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually chosen clinical peer review.[half dozen] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[7] Many other professional person fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[8] constabulary,[9] [10] technology (eastward.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[eleven]

Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly equally a tool to reach higher social club processes in the affective and cerebral domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a diverseness of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in scientific discipline and medicine.[12] [xiii]

Scholarly [edit]

Scholarly peer review (too known as refereeing) is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field. Peer review helps the bookish publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal, a monograph or in the proceedings of an bookish conference.

Peer review requires a customs of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, specially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to attain, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated amongst its contemporaries. Peer review is mostly considered necessary to academic quality and is used in virtually major scholarly journals. However, peer review does non entirely prevent publication of invalid enquiry,[14] and as experimentally controlled studies of this procedure are difficult to arrange, direct evidence that peer review improves the quality of published papers is scarce.[xv]

Scholarly peer review has been subject to several criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system take been suggested over the years. Many studies have emphasized the issues inherent to the process of peer review. (run into Squazzoni et al. 2017[16]). Moreover, Ragone et al., (2013)[17] have shown that in that location is a low correlation between peer review outcomes and the future touch on measured by citations. Brezis and Birukou as well prove that the Peer Review process is not working properly. They underline that the ratings are non robust, due east.g., changing reviewers tin can take a dramatic impact on the review results. Two main elements affect the bias in the peer procedure.[eighteen]

  • The first element is that referees brandish homophily in their taste and perception of innovative ideas. So reviewers who are developing conventional ideas will tend to give low grades to innovative projects, while reviewers who have developed innovative ideas tend, by homophily, to give higher grades to innovative projects.
  • The 2d element leading to a loftier variance in the peer review process is that reviewers are not investing the same amount of time to analyze the projects (or equivalently are not with the same abilities). Brezis and Biruku[xviii] show that this heterogeneity among referees will lead to seriously affect the whole peer review process, and will pb to primary arbitrariness in the results of the process.[18]

The peer process is also in apply for projects acceptance. (For projects, the credence rates are small and are between 1% and twenty%, with an average of 10%. In the European H2020 calls, the acceptance charge per unit is 1.8%.) Peer review is more problematic when choosing the projects to be funded since innovative projects are non highly ranked in the existing peer-review process. The peer-review process leads to conformity, i.e., the option of less controversial projects and papers. This may even influence the type of proposals scholars will propose, since scholars need to discover financing for their enquiry as discussed by Martin, 1997:[19] "A mutual breezy view is that information technology is easier to obtain funds for conventional projects. Those who are eager to get funding are not probable to suggest radical or unorthodox projects. Since y'all don't know who the referees are going to be, it is best to presume that they are middle-of-the-road. Therefore, the centre-of-the-road application is safer".[18]

Other attempts to reform the peer review procedure originate among others from the fields of metascience and journalology. Reformers seek to increase the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and to provide information technology with a scientific foundation.[20] [21] [22] Alternatives to common peer review practices have been put to the test,[23] [24] in item open up peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed likewise, e.g., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.

Government policy [edit]

The European Wedlock has been using peer review in the "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy since 1999.[25] In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion.[26] Each programme sponsors about viii peer review meetings in each yr, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually see over ii days and include visits to local sites where the policy can exist seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an skilful report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress fabricated past its member countries in improving their environmental policies.

The Country of California is the simply U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Lath, Department, or Office adopts a terminal version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Wellness and Safe Lawmaking Section 57004.[27]

Medical [edit]

Medical peer review may exist distinguished in 4 classifications:[28]

  1. Clinical peer review is a process for assessing a patient'southward involvement with experiences of care. It is a slice of progressing proficient exercise assessment and centered skilful practice assessment—significant supporters of supplier credentialing and privileging.[29]
  2. Peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses.[xxx] [31]
  3. Scientific peer review of journal articles.
  4. A secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.[32]

Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not but to the process of improving quality and safety in health intendance organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional person society membership standards.[33] [34] The clinical network believes it to be the virtually platonic method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and feasible for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, specially every bit a database search term.[35]

Technical [edit]

In engineering, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well divers review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted past a squad of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material beingness reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, betwixt milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products.[36]

Extended peer review [edit]

Extended peer review is the process of including people and groups with feel across that of working academics in the processes of assuring the quality of enquiry. If conducted systematically, this can lead to more reliable, or applicable, results than a peer review process conducted purely by academics.[37]

Pedagogical tool [edit]

Peer review, or student peer assessment, is widely used in secondary and post-secondary education as function of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other's work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision.[38] While widely used in English and limerick classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines which crave writing equally part of the curriculum. These other disciplines include those in the social and natural sciences.[39] [xl] Peer review in classrooms helps students become more invested in their piece of work, and the classroom environment at large.[ commendation needed ] Understanding how their piece of work is read by a diverse readership before it is graded by the teacher may also help students clarify ideas, and understand how to persuasively reach unlike audience members via their writing. Information technology also give students professional experience that they might depict on later when asked to review the piece of work of a colleague prior to publication.[41] [42]

Critics of peer review in classrooms say that information technology tin be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving constructive criticism, or lack of expertise in the writing arts and crafts at large.[43] As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the form, or focus on specific areas of feedback during the peer review process.[44] Instructors may also experiment with in-class peer review vs. peer review equally homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning management systems online.

Encounter also [edit]

  • Objectivity (philosophy)
  • Academic publishing
  • Scientific literature

References [edit]

  1. ^ Schimanski, Lesley A.; Alperin, Juan Pablo (2018). "The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes: Past, present, and hereafter". F1000Research. vii: 1605. doi:ten.12688/f1000research.16493.1. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC6325612. PMID 30647909.
  2. ^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Archived from the original on 16 January 2009. Retrieved 21 Baronial 2016.
  3. ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1: 0. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001. S2CID 186211404.
  4. ^ Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Social club. Oxford: Oxford University Printing. Bibcode:2002heol.volume.....B. ISBN978-0-19-851053-vi.
  5. ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
  6. ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Annals of Internal Medicine. 118 (7): 566–viii. doi:ten.7326/0003-4819-118-vii-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628. S2CID 45863865. Archived from the original on 21 July 2012.
  7. ^ Milgrom P; Weinstein P; Ratener P; Read WA; Morrison M (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Cess". American Periodical of Public Health. 68 (4): 394–401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394. PMC1653950. PMID 645987.
  8. ^ "AICPA Peer Review Program Manual". American Institute of CPAs. Archived from the original on 28 October 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  9. ^ "Peer Review". U.k. Legal Services Commission. 12 July 2007. Archived from the original on 14 October 2010.
  10. ^ "Martindale-Hubbell Chaser Reviews and Ratings". Martindale. Archived from the original on 18 January 2020. Retrieved 27 January 2020.
  11. ^ "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Wood Service. 6 Feb 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved iv October 2010.
  12. ^ Sims Gerald One thousand. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18 (2): 105–108. doi:x.2134/jae1989.0105. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved iv September 2012. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, simply was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
  13. ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William Westward. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (9): 824–829. doi:ten.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 Dec 2012. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  14. ^ KupferschmidtAug. 17, Kai; 2018; Am, ix:15 (14 August 2018). "Researcher at the heart of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science | AAAS . Retrieved 11 August 2019. {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to report". Science. 341 (6152): 1331. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331. PMID 24052283.
  16. ^ Squazzoni, Flaminio; Brezis, Elise; Marušić, Ana (1 October 2017). "Scientometrics of peer review". Scientometrics. 113 (1): 501–502. doi:x.1007/s11192-017-2518-4. ISSN 1588-2861. PMC5629222. PMID 29056787.
  17. ^ Ragone, Azzurra; Mirylenka, Katsiaryna; Casati, Fabio; Marchese, Maurizio (1 November 2013). "On peer review in computer science: analysis of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement". Scientometrics. 97 (ii): 317–356. doi:ten.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. ISSN 0138-9130. S2CID 16803499.
  18. ^ a b c d Brezis, Elise South.; Birukou, Aliaksandr (one April 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review procedure". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi:x.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 211017926. CC-BY icon.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Artistic Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  19. ^ Martin, B. "Chapter 5: Peer review as scholarly conformity". www.bmartin.cc.
  20. ^ Rennie, Drummond (7 July 2016). "Allow'south make peer review scientific". Nature News. 535 (7610): 31–33. Bibcode:2016Natur.535...31R. doi:10.1038/535031a. PMID 27383970. S2CID 4408375.
  21. ^ Slavov, Nikolai (xi Nov 2015). "Making the most of peer review". eLife. 4: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC4641509. PMID 26559758.
  22. ^ Couzin-FrankelSep. 19, Jennifer (18 September 2018). "'Journalologists' use scientific methods to written report bookish publishing. Is their work improving science?". Science | AAAS . Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  23. ^ Cosgrove, Andrew; Cheifet, Barbara (27 November 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC6260718. PMID 30482224.
  24. ^ Patterson, Marking; Schekman, Randy (26 June 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. seven: e36545. doi:x.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC6019064. PMID 29944117.
  25. ^ "Mutual Learning Program - Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion - European Commission". ec.europa.eu.
  26. ^ "Social Peer to Peer – Online Casino Reviews". www.peer-review-social-inclusion.eu. Archived from the original on 11 April 2021. Retrieved xxx September 2021.
  27. ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Archived from the original on xxx March 2017. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  28. ^ "REVIEW BY PEERS" (PDF). A Guide for Professional, Clinical and Authoritative Processes. Archived (PDF) from the original on thirty October 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  29. ^ Deyo-Svendsen, Mark E.; Phillips, Michael R.; Albright, Jill Grand.; Schilling, Keith A.; Palmer, Karl B. (October–December 2016). "A Systematic Approach to Clinical Peer Review in a Critical Access Infirmary". Quality Management in Healthcare. 25 (four): 213–218. doi:10.1097/QMH.0000000000000113. ISSN 1063-8628. PMC5054974. PMID 27749718.
  30. ^ "Medschool.ucsf.edu" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on xiv August 2010.
  31. ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner Due south, Dugan Yard, Roche M (November–Dec 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical education through peer review". Nurse Educator. 23 (6): 17–twenty. doi:x.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106.
  32. ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "2nd-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.xv.1801. PMID 16622142.
  33. ^ Snelson, Elizabeth A. (2010). Physician's Guide to Medical Staff System Bylaws (PDF). ama-assn.org. p. 131. Archived from the original (PDF) on six Baronial 2011.
  34. ^ "Medical Peer Review". Ama-assn.org. Archived from the original on 6 March 2010.
  35. ^ "Peer review: What is it and why do we do information technology?". www.medicalnewstoday.com. 29 March 2019. Archived from the original on 28 August 2020. Retrieved half dozen August 2020.
  36. ^ NASA Systems Engineering science Handbook (PDF). NASA. 2007. SP-610S. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 19 July 2019.
  37. ^ Funtowicz, S (6 December 2001). "Peer review and quality control". In Smelser, Neil J; Baltes, Paul B (eds.). International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences. pp. 11179–11183.
  38. ^ Søndergaard, Harald; Mulder, Raoul A. (2012). "Collaborative learning through determinative peer review: pedagogy, programs and potential". Computer Science Education. 22 (four): 343–367. Bibcode:2012CSEd...22..343S. doi:10.1080/08993408.2012.728041. ISSN 0899-3408. S2CID 40784250. Archived from the original on v May 2021. Retrieved eighteen August 2021.
  39. ^ Guilford, William H. (1 September 2001). "Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing". Advances in Physiology Education. 25 (iii): 167–175. doi:10.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167. ISSN 1043-4046. PMID 11824193. Archived from the original on 18 Baronial 2021. Retrieved eighteen August 2021.
  40. ^ Bakery, Kimberly M. (i November 2016). "Peer review as a strategy for improving students' writing procedure". Active Learning in Higher Didactics. 17 (iii): 179–192. doi:x.1177/1469787416654794. ISSN 1469-7874. S2CID 49527249. Archived from the original on 30 September 2021. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
  41. ^ "Benefits of Peer Review". world wide web.southwestern.edu. Archived from the original on 19 August 2021. Retrieved 19 Baronial 2021.
  42. ^ Kern, Vinícius Yard.; Possamai, Osmar; Selig, Paulo One thousand.; Pacheco, Roberto C. dos S.; Souza, Gilberto C. de; Rautenberg, Sandro; Lemos, Renata T. da S. (2009). "Growing a peer review civilisation amid graduate students". In Tatnall, A.; Jones, A. (eds.). Educational activity and Technology for a Meliorate World. WCCE 2009. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Engineering, vol 302. pp. 388–397. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  43. ^ "What Are the Disadvantages of Student Peer Review? | Synonym". classroom.synonym.com. Archived from the original on thirty September 2021. Retrieved xx August 2021.
  44. ^ "Conducting Peer Review – Writers Workshop". Archived from the original on xx August 2021. Retrieved twenty August 2021.

Farther reading [edit]

  • Bazi, Toni (2020). "Peer Review: Single-blind, Double-bullheaded, or All the Manner-blind?". International Urogynecology Journal (published 9 December 2019). 31 (3): 481–483. doi:ten.1007/s00192-019-04187-two. PMID 31820012. S2CID 208869313.
  • Tomkins, Andrew; Zhang, Min; Heavlin, William D. (2017) [Composed October 2017]. Fiske, Susan T. (ed.). "Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-bullheaded Peer Review". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s. (published November 2017). 114 (48): 12708–12713. doi:ten.1073/pnas.1707323114. PMC5715744. PMID 29138317.
  • Martín, Eloisa (2016). "How Double-blind Peer Review Works and What It Takes To Be A Skilful Referee". Current Sociology. SAGE. 64 (5): 691–698. doi:ten.1177/0011392116656711.
  • Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals : Guidelines for Good Exercise. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN978-1-4051-3159-nine.

External links [edit]

  • Monument to peer review, Moscow

nowlinsirmend.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Posting Komentar untuk "Who Is Not Qualified to Perform Peer Review?"