Home  ›  The Major Purpose of Peer Review Is to

The Major Purpose of Peer Review Is to

Written By sexta-feira, 22 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit

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

For Wikipedia's Peer Review surface area, run into 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 people with similar competencies every bit the producers of the piece of work (peers). It functions as a form of cocky-regulation past qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve operation, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is frequently used to determine an bookish paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized past the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.thou., medical peer review. Information technology tin can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments.

Professional person [edit]

Professional peer review focuses on the operation 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 advocacy and tenure.[1] Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[2] [3] [4]

A prototype professional peer-review process was recommended in the Ideals of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to make duplicate notes of a patient'southward status on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical intendance.[5]

Professional peer review is common in the field of wellness care, where it is usually called clinical peer review.[half dozen] Farther, since peer review activity is normally segmented past clinical discipline, at that place is besides physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[7] Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[8] law,[9] [10] engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and fifty-fifty forest fire management.[11]

Peer review is used in education to attain certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach college order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Blossom'south taxonomy. This may take a diversity of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.[12] [13]

Scholarly [edit]

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

Peer review requires a customs of experts in a given (and oft narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, particularly of work in less narrowly divers or inter-disciplinary fields, may be hard to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is more often than not considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals. Yet, peer review does non entirely prevent publication of invalid inquiry,[14] and as experimentally controlled studies of this process are difficult to conform, straight bear witness that peer review improves the quality of published papers is deficient.[15]

Scholarly peer review has been subject to several criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system take been suggested over the years. Many studies accept emphasized the problems inherent to the procedure of peer review. (see 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 hereafter affect measured by citations. Brezis and Birukou as well prove that the Peer Review process is not working properly. They underline that the ratings are not robust, e.thou., changing reviewers tin accept a dramatic affect on the review results. Two principal elements affect the bias in the peer process.[18]

  • The first element is that referees display homophily in their sense of taste and perception of innovative ideas. So reviewers who are developing conventional ideas will tend to give depression grades to innovative projects, while reviewers who have developed innovative ideas tend, past homophily, to requite higher grades to innovative projects.
  • The second chemical element leading to a loftier variance in the peer review procedure is that reviewers are not investing the same amount of time to clarify the projects (or equivalently are not with the aforementioned abilities). Brezis and Biruku[18] prove that this heterogeneity among referees will lead to seriously affect the whole peer review process, and will lead to main arbitrariness in the results of the process.[18]

The peer process is also in use for projects acceptance. (For projects, the acceptance rates are modest and are betwixt one% and twenty%, with an average of 10%. In the European H2020 calls, the credence charge per unit is 1.8%.) Peer review is more problematic when choosing the projects to exist funded since innovative projects are not highly ranked in the existing peer-review process. The peer-review procedure leads to conformity, i.e., the selection of less controversial projects and papers. This may fifty-fifty influence the type of proposals scholars volition suggest, since scholars need to discover financing for their research equally discussed by Martin, 1997:[19] "A common informal view is that it 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 yous don't know who the referees are going to be, it is best to assume that they are center-of-the-road. Therefore, the middle-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 increment the reliability and efficiency of the peer review process and to provide it with a scientific foundation.[20] [21] [22] Alternatives to common peer review practices have been put to the test,[23] [24] in particular open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, more often than not with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed besides, due east.1000., F1000, eLife, BMJ, and BioMed Central.

Regime policy [edit]

The European union 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 program sponsors nigh 8 peer review meetings in each twelvemonth, in which a "host country" lays a given policy or initiative open to test past half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually come across over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an practiced report on which participating "peer countries" submit comments. The results are published on the web.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Ecology Functioning Reviews, uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.

The Land of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California signed into law Senate Nib 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must exist submitted for contained external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.[27]

Medical [edit]

Medical peer review may be distinguished in four classifications:[28]

  1. Clinical peer review is a procedure for assessing a patient's involvement with experiences of care. Information technology is a piece of progressing skilful practice assessment and centered expert practice assessment—meaning supporters of supplier credentialing and privileging.[29]
  2. Peer evaluation of clinical pedagogy skills for both physicians and nurses.[30] [31]
  3. Scientific peer review of journal articles.
  4. A secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of manufactures meantime published in medical journals.[32]

Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not merely to the procedure of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, just too to the procedure of rating clinical beliefs or compliance with professional society membership standards.[33] [34] The clinical network believes information technology to be the virtually ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is undecayed and that whatever clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, especially as a database search term.[35]

Technical [edit]

In engineering science, technical peer review is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a squad of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by cloth being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held inside development phases, between 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 experience beyond that of working academics in the processes of assuring the quality of research. If conducted systematically, this tin can lead to more than 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 postal service-secondary education as role of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other'southward work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision.[38] While widely used in English and composition classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines which require writing as office of the curriculum. These other disciplines include those in the social and natural sciences.[39] [40] Peer review in classrooms helps students become more than invested in their work, and the classroom environment at large.[ citation needed ] Understanding how their piece of work is read past a various readership before it is graded past the teacher may too assistance students clarify ideas, and sympathize how to persuasively reach different audience members via their writing. Information technology also requite students professional feel that they might draw on later when asked to review the work of a colleague prior to publication.[41] [42]

Critics of peer review in classrooms say that it can be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving effective criticism, or lack of expertise in the writing craft at large.[43] As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the course, 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 as homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning direction systems online.

Come across too [edit]

  • Objectivity (philosophy)
  • Bookish 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 future". F1000Research. vii: 1605. doi:10.12688/f1000research.16493.1. ISSN 2046-1402. PMC6325612. PMID 30647909.
  2. ^ Hatch, Robert A. (Feb 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". Academy of Florida. Archived from the original on 16 Jan 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  3. ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Imperial Social club. 1: 0. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001. S2CID 186211404.
  4. ^ Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Majestic Society. Oxford: Oxford Academy Press. Bibcode:2002heol.book.....B. ISBN978-0-xix-851053-6.
  5. ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. twenty (viii): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284.
  6. ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished paradigm". Register of Internal Medicine. 118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628. S2CID 45863865. Archived from the original on 21 July 2012.
  7. ^ Milgrom P; Weinstein P; Ratener P; Read WA; Morrison Thousand (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Command: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". 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 Constitute of CPAs. Archived from the original on 28 October 2012. Retrieved four September 2012.
  9. ^ "Peer Review". Uk Legal Services Commission. 12 July 2007. Archived from the original on 14 October 2010.
  10. ^ "Martindale-Hubbell Attorney 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 Forest Service. six February 2006. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2010.
  12. ^ Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Educatee Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Instruction. eighteen (2): 105–108. doi:x.2134/jae1989.0105. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2012. Retrieved four September 2012. The review procedure was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, simply was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used past scientific journals
  13. ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (ix): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 Dec 2012. Retrieved iv September 2012.
  14. ^ KupferschmidtAug. 17, Kai; 2018; Am, nine:15 (xiv August 2018). "Researcher at the middle of an ballsy fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him". Science | AAAS . Retrieved 11 August 2019. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). "Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study". 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 (2): 317–356. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1002-z. ISSN 0138-9130. S2CID 16803499.
  18. ^ a b c d Brezis, Elise South.; Birukou, Aliaksandr (ane Apr 2020). "Arbitrariness in the peer review process". Scientometrics. 123 (1): 393–411. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03348-1. ISSN 1588-2861. S2CID 211017926. CC-BY icon.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution iv.0 International License.
  19. ^ Martin, B. "Chapter 5: Peer review as scholarly conformity". world wide web.bmartin.cc.
  20. ^ Rennie, Drummond (7 July 2016). "Permit's 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 (11 Nov 2015). "Making the about of peer review". eLife. iv: e12708. doi:10.7554/eLife.12708. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC4641509. PMID 26559758.
  22. ^ Couzin-FrankelSep. 19, Jennifer (eighteen September 2018). "'Journalologists' utilise scientific methods to report academic publishing. Is their piece of work improving scientific discipline?". Science | AAAS . Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  23. ^ Cosgrove, Andrew; Cheifet, Barbara (27 Nov 2018). "Transparent peer review trial: the results". Genome Biology. 19 (1): 206. doi:ten.1186/s13059-018-1584-0. ISSN 1474-760X. PMC6260718. PMID 30482224.
  24. ^ Patterson, Mark; Schekman, Randy (26 June 2018). "A new twist on peer review". eLife. vii: e36545. doi:x.7554/eLife.36545. ISSN 2050-084X. PMC6019064. PMID 29944117.
  25. ^ "Mutual Learning Programme - 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 30 September 2021.
  27. ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Archived from the original on 30 March 2017. Retrieved 30 March 2017.
  28. ^ "REVIEW Past PEERS" (PDF). A Guide for Professional, Clinical and Authoritative Processes. Archived (PDF) from the original on xxx October 2020. Retrieved six August 2020.
  29. ^ Deyo-Svendsen, Mark E.; Phillips, Michael R.; Albright, Jill Chiliad.; Schilling, Keith A.; Palmer, Karl B. (October–December 2016). "A Systematic Approach to Clinical Peer Review in a Critical Access Hospital". Quality Management in Healthcare. 25 (4): 213–218. doi:ten.1097/QMH.0000000000000113. ISSN 1063-8628. PMC5054974. PMID 27749718.
  30. ^ "Medschool.ucsf.edu" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 August 2010.
  31. ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner Due south, Dugan Thou, Roche G (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical didactics through peer review". Nurse Educator. 23 (6): 17–20. doi:x.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106.
  32. ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-lodge peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:x.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142.
  33. ^ Snelson, Elizabeth A. (2010). Md's Guide to Medical Staff System Bylaws (PDF). ama-assn.org. p. 131. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 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 it?". www.medicalnewstoday.com. 29 March 2019. Archived from the original on 28 August 2020. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  36. ^ NASA Systems Engineering 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 command". 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 formative peer review: didactics, 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 xviii Baronial 2021.
  39. ^ Guilford, William H. (1 September 2001). "Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing". Advances in Physiology Education. 25 (3): 167–175. doi:ten.1152/advances.2001.25.3.167. ISSN 1043-4046. PMID 11824193. Archived from the original on xviii August 2021. Retrieved xviii August 2021.
  40. ^ Baker, Kimberly Grand. (ane November 2016). "Peer review equally a strategy for improving students' writing procedure". Active Learning in Higher Education. 17 (3): 179–192. doi:10.1177/1469787416654794. ISSN 1469-7874. S2CID 49527249. Archived from the original on 30 September 2021. Retrieved eighteen August 2021.
  41. ^ "Benefits of Peer Review". www.southwestern.edu. Archived from the original on xix August 2021. Retrieved nineteen August 2021.
  42. ^ Kern, Vinícius Yard.; Possamai, Osmar; Selig, Paulo Grand.; Pacheco, Roberto C. dos South.; Souza, Gilberto C. de; Rautenberg, Sandro; Lemos, Renata T. da South. (2009). "Growing a peer review culture amidst graduate students". In Tatnall, A.; Jones, A. (eds.). Didactics and Technology for a Better World. WCCE 2009. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 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 twenty August 2021.
  44. ^ "Conducting Peer Review – Writers Workshop". Archived from the original on xx August 2021. Retrieved xx August 2021.

Further reading [edit]

  • Bazi, Toni (2020). "Peer Review: Single-blind, Double-bullheaded, or All the Way-bullheaded?". International Urogynecology Journal (published 9 December 2019). 31 (3): 481–483. doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2. PMID 31820012. S2CID 208869313.
  • Tomkins, Andrew; Zhang, Min; Heavlin, William D. (2017) [Composed Oct 2017]. Fiske, Susan T. (ed.). "Reviewer Bias in Single- Versus Double-blind Peer Review". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.s.a. of America (published November 2017). 114 (48): 12708–12713. doi:10.1073/pnas.1707323114. PMC5715744. PMID 29138317.
  • Martín, Eloisa (2016). "How Double-blind Peer Review Works and What It Takes To Be A Adept Referee". Electric current Folklore. SAGE. 64 (5): 691–698. doi:x.1177/0011392116656711.
  • Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals : Guidelines for Adept Practice. Oxford, Uk: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN978-one-4051-3159-9.

External links [edit]

  • Monument to peer review, Moscow

fitzgeraldtheepost.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "The Major Purpose of Peer Review Is to"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel