
	Where results make sense

Topic: Peer review

Related Topics

Physical Review

Code review

Preprint

Academic publishing

Scientific journal

Scientific research

Software inspection

Scientific literature

Editor

Nature (journal)

Scientific fraud

Annalen der Physik

Scientific method

Falsifiability

Refactoring

In the News (Sun 22 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	FAQ - Peer Review
		Peer review is the evaluation of nursing services, the qualifications of a nurse, the quality of patient care rendered by nurses, the merits of a complaint concerning a nurse or nursing care, and a determination or recommendation regarding a complaint including:
		Review of NPR Chapter 303 in its entirety is recommended, as compliance with various sections of this chapter is necessary to assure compliance with “due process” and “good faith” peer review requirements.
		If the peer review committee believes external factors were involved in the incident (whether or not the nurse is being reported to the BON) the committee is now required to also report the issue to the entity’s patient safety committee, or to the CNO/nurse administrator if there is no patient safety committee.
	www.bne.state.tx.us /practice/faq-peerreview.html (4532 words)

	Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research.
		Peer review subjects an author's work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more others who are experts in the field.
		Peer review of scholars' work has existed at least since it was known as "The Inquisition of the Holy Roman and Catholic Church"; a principal task of which was to investigate "suspected novelties".
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Peer_review (3940 words)

	Peer review
		Peer review can never be perfect, and surely only the most blinkered idealist would hold that it is not, from time to time, corrupted in just these very ways.
		And as for explaining peer review to the public, well – the notion that people at large will wish to engage with peer review sufficiently to form any strong opinion of it – even assuming they do not lose the will to live half way through the explanation – is utterly unrealistic and completely fantastic.
		It is time for scientists and their reviewers to call for an end to what remains of the peer show’s futile and odious secrecy, grow up, be mature, and most of all, be prepared to defend what they write to an author’s face with humour, humility and humanity.
	www.mantleplumes.org /PeerReview.html (2965 words)

	Peer review at opensource encyclopedia (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Peer review subjects an author's work or ideas to the scrutiny of one or more others who are experts in the field of the subject at hand.
		A chief rationale for peer review is that rarely is just one person, or one closely working group, able to spot every mistake or weakness in a complicated piece of work.
		In some cases, reviewing is blinded: the authors are required to remove any reference that may point to them as the authors of the paper (bibliography etc...) and the referees are not informed of the names of the authors.
	www.wiki.tatet.com /Peer_review.html (1554 words)

	Peer Review: Crude and Understudied, but Indispensable... [Peer review, July 13 JAMA. 1994;272:96-97] (c) AMA 1996
		In a review of biases, dozens have been identified at various stages of a study[10] --in specifying and selecting the study sample, executing the experimental maneuver, measuring outcomes, analyzing the data, and interpreting the data.
		[11] [12] For example,disagreement among reviewers is common[3][13] and is probably primarily a reflection of the complexity of the process of manuscript assessment rather than being evidence that the peer review process is arbitrary or capricious.
		Reviewers with different experiences, different areas of expertise, and different views of the body of knowledge may produce quite different assessments that are valuable to author and editor even though their recommendations are divergent.
	www.ama-assn.org /public/peer/7_13_94/pv3089x.htm (1795 words)

	Peer Review Process
		The peer review meeting is a committee process and the summary statement reflects the individual comments of the assigned reviewers and the collective input of the committee.
		The initial scientific peer review of most research applications also will include a process in which only those applications deemed by the reviewers to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of the applications under review, will be discussed at the SRG meeting, assigned a priority score, and receive a second level review.
		Revised applications are reviewed in the same manner as new applications, although reviewers are instructed to evaluate the appropriateness of the responses to the previous review.
	grants.nih.gov /grants/peer_review_process.htm (1493 words)

	The case against peer review. By Daniel Engber
		Scientists give peer review so much authority because they view it as a part of the grand tradition of scientific inquiry—an extension, even, of the formal experimental method.
		Peer evaluation is the endpoint of a cautious progression from theories and predictions to experiments and results.
		One set of studies shows that revealing the identities of reviewers has no effect on the quality of their efforts, contradicting the standard argument that anonymity fosters rigorous criticism and high standards.
	www.slate.com /id/2116244 (1496 words)

	Tree of Life Peer Review
		Reviewers are chosen by the editor-in-chief (David Maddison) in consultation with the associate editors (i.e., coordinators) of a given group.
		The reviews are administered under the system of one-sided anonymity, i.e., reviewers are provided with the names of the authors, but authors are not told the identities of the reviewers; reviewers do, however, have the option of revealing their identity to the authors, if they wish to do so.
		Reviewers are expected to base their recommendation as to a page's acceptance or rejection on a thorough examination of the submitted material.
	tolweb.org /tree/home.pages/peerreview.html (667 words)

	Peer Review Glossary
		The Center Peer Review Program is designed to review and evaluate those portions of a firm's accounting and auditing practice that are not inspected by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) (i.e., the non-SEC issuer practice) so firms can meet their state licensing, federal regulatory and/or AICPA membership requirements.
		Peer review control risk is the risk that a firm’s system of quality control will not prevent the performance of an engagement that does not conform with professional standards.
		After reviewing the firm's response, the reviewer considers whether the firm's response is appropriate, prepares additional team captain comments, if necessary, and evaluates whether to incorporate the matter into a letter of comments finding.
	www.reyhl.com /peer_review/glossary.html (4674 words)

	naturalSCIENCE, Volume 1, Article 2, 1997
		Summary: A brief historical overview of the origins of peer review reveals that it is neither the best means of evaluating contributions to science nor the one most commonly used during the period in which the modern scientific method developed.
		It is argued here that peer review as now undertaken by most scientific journals stifles scientific communication, slows the advancement of knowledge and encourages dishonest behavior among referees.
		In general, peer review stifles scientific enquiry both by subjecting authors to anonymous critics whose comments cannot be directly challenged, and by self-censorship by authors who hesitate to state the exact rationale or goals of their proposed research for fear that it would not pass the scrutiny of their colleagues.
	naturalscience.com /ns/articles/01-02/ns_mh.html (4085 words)

	Peer Review - P2P Foundation
		Peer review is part of an elaborate process of institutional and prior validation of what constitutes valid knowledge; peer production vetting is a posteriory vetting by the community of participants.
		This gives the practice of peer review an inherently conservative tendency, particularly when access to the peer group is strictly policed, as it is the case in academia, where diplomas and appointments are necessary to enter the elite circle.
		I should also qualify my comments by saying that while peer review seems to work reasonably well in journal article review, it is undeniably broke in conference article and grant proposal review, two fairly large and important parts of the practice of science today.
	p2pfoundation.net /Peer_Review (1307 words)

	[No title]
		Peer and non-peer review Andrew Odlyzko Digital Technology Center University of Minnesota http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko Fears about possible damage to the classical peer review system are slowing down the evolution of scholarly communication.
		An example of how evolving forms of peer review function is provided by the recent proof that testing whether a natural number is prime (that is, divisible only by 1 and itself) can be done fast.
		However, although their paper will go through the conventional journal peer review and publication system, that will be almost irrelevant for the intellectual development of their area.
	www.dtc.umn.edu /~odlyzko/doc/peer.review.txt (1381 words)

	"The Peer Review Process"
		Reviewers are then given a list of applications that were initially scored in the lower half.
		Assigned reviewers and discussants present their evaluations and outside opinions are read.
		In a second level of peer review, IC Advisory Councils may consider the study section’s recommendations and determine the relevance of your proposed research to IC priorities and public health needs.
	cms.csr.nih.gov /AboutCSR/OverviewofPeerReviewProcess.htm (740 words)

	Evaluate a Lawyer with Exclusive Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Ratings™ Service on Martindale.com®
		The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings service, which evaluates lawyers and law firms in the United States and Canada, is based on the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary, including both those who are rated and those who are not.
		AV® Peer Review Rating — An AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.
		Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Ratings attest to a lawyer's professional legal ability and ethics and are based on the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary.
	www.martindale.com /xp/legal/About_Martindale/Products_and_Services/Peer_Review_Ratings/ratings.xml (3162 words)

	Exploit Interactive Issue 5: The Invisible Hand of Peer Review
		The residual cost of online-only peer review is low enough to be recovered from author-institution-end page charges, covered from institutional subscription savings, thereby vouchsafing a toll-free literature for everyone, everywhere, forever.
		Both journals are rigorously refereed; only those papers that have successfully passed through the peer review filter go on to run the gauntlet of open peer commentary, an extremely powerful and important supplement to peer review, but certainly no substitute for it.
		Hardly, for the "Invisible Hand" of peer review is still there, exerting its civilising influence: Just about every paper deposited in Los Alamos is also destined for a peer reviewed journal; the author knows it will be answerable to the editors and referees.
	www.exploit-lib.org /issue5/peer-review (1683 words)

	Turnitin
		Peer Review is widely regarded as a highly effective means for encouraging collaborative learning and improving student writing.
		Turnitin's Peer Review system makes it easy for you to create precise, custom peer review assignments that serve as frameworks to help target the acquisition of those skills most relevant for your class, school, or institution.
		Educators have long recognized peer review's value as a pedagogical tool, but the time necessary to organize and supervise reviews in a traditional classroom setting has proved a barrier to its widespread adoption in most developmental writing program curricula.
	www.turnitin.com /static/peerreview.html (320 words)

	NIAID Glossary of Funding and Policy Terms and Acronyms: N-Q -- NIAID Research Funding
		Requirement that agencies conduct peer review of certain publications before publishing influential scientific information that may affect important public policies or private sector decisions.
		See also dual peer review, scientific review group, study section, integrated review group, scientific review administrator, human subjects codes, and animals in research codes.
		Peer reviewer who reads a grant application thoroughly, writes a critique of it before an initial peer review meeting, and then presents it to the scientific review group for discussion.
	www.niaid.nih.gov /ncn/glossary/default5.htm (3680 words)

	Board of Accountancy Oregon Board of Accountancy
		The purpose of peer review is to assure continuing competence of licensees who perform attestation and compilation services.
		ORS 673.010 requires that peer review be conducted by a licensed CPA or a Public Accountant licensed in Oregon.
		In order to comply with the statute, peer reviewers may apply for authorization to practice through substantial equivalency.
	egov.oregon.gov /BOA/PeerReview.shtml (277 words)

	Peer-Review
		Whether it appears in print, a combination of print and electronic forms, or only in electronic form, a peer reviewed journal is one in which each feature article has been examined by people with credentials in the article's field of study before it is published.
		Collections of papers from conferences may be considered peer reviewed as well, if the original presentations were "invited" or examined by experts before being accepted.
		Nevertheless, peer review is the best mechanism we have to attain scholarly objectivity and to guard against scientific fraud.
	valinor.ca /peer-review.html (693 words)

	The North American Registry of Midwives
		Peer Review adds validity to the certification process and is required in many medical settings.
		The outcome and recommendations which result from the NARM Complaint Review are sent to the NARM Accountability Director and a formal letter stating the outcome is issued to the midwife, complainant, and peer review chairperson.
		NARM cannot require a midwife who is not a CPM to participate in Peer Review or Grievance Review, but participation would be a requirement of re-application should the midwife attempt to re-activate her certification.
	www.narm.org /peerreview.htm (4418 words)

	Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education \| About
		Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education
		Peer Review provides a quarterly briefing on emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate liberal education.
		Peer Review is read by more than 6,000 college administrators, faculty, graduate students, and other educators each quarter.
	www.aacu.org /peerreview/about.cfm (83 words)

	Peer Review : Web Focus : Nature
		Once the usual confidential peer review process is complete, the public 'open peer review' process was closed and the editors made their decision about publication with the help of all reports and comments.
		Peer review is the bedrock of scientific publication (for
		Once the usual confidential peer review process is complete, the public 'open peer review' process will be closed.
	www.nature.com /nature/peerreview/index.html (675 words)

	Peer Review
		Peer review is useful for instructors of large introductory-level courses that want to challenge their students to think critically, synthesize information, and communicate science in nontechnical language.
		Through use of technological tools, electronic peer review provides the option of not restricting the peer-review process to a particular location and/or time, while the grading load is lessened on an instructor.
		Peer review assignments can be developed for individual communication exchanges or collaborative team projects.
	serc.carleton.edu /introgeo/peerreview/index.html (292 words)

	Educator Licensing : Alternate Licensing Program (Peer Review)
		Peer Review is for individuals who have acquired the knowledge and skills needed to meet the 16 Principles for Vermont Educators and the competencies and requirements for the endorsements they seek through coursework and experiences, rather than through a preparation program.
		The expectation is not that a peer review candidate address each and every competency individually in a peer review portfolio but rather by clusters of competencies.
		The department offers monthly peer review clinics to provide support for candidates who are considering peer review or who would like a consultation as they prepare their portfolios.
	education.vermont.gov /new/html/licensing/alternate.html (551 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)