Dataset Information

Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

ABSTRACT: "Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g., ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of "non-selective review," focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of "open review," which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research.

SUBMITTER: Walker R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4444765 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

Walker Richard R Rocha da Silva Pascal P

Frontiers in neuroscience 20150527

"Classical peer review" has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of rev ...[more]

PMID: 26074753

Similar Datasets

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequently detected type of cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer‑related mortality globally. The American Cancer Society predicted that approximately 147,950 individuals would be diagnosed with CRC, out of which 53,200 individuals would succumb to the disease in the USA alone in 2020. CRC‑related mortality ranks third among both males and females in the USA. CRC arises from 3 major pathways: i) The adenoma‑carcinoma sequence; ii) serrated pathway; and iii) the inflammatory pathway. The majority of cases of CRC are sporadic and result from risk factors, such as a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, processed diets, alcohol consumption and smoking. CRC is also a common preventable cancer. With widespread CRC screening, the incidence and mortality from CRC have decreased in developed countries. However, over the past few decades, CRC cases and mortality have been on the rise in young adults (age, <50 years). In addition, CRC cases are increasing in developing countries with a low gross domestic product (GDP) due to lifestyle changes. CRC is an etiologically heterogeneous disease classified by tumor location and alterations in global gene expression. Accumulating genetic and epigenetic perturbations and aberrations over time in tumor suppressor genes, oncogenes and DNA mismatch repair genes could be a precursor to the onset of colorectal cancer. CRC can be divided as sporadic, familial, and inherited depending on the origin of the mutation. Germline mutations in APC and MLH1 have been proven to play an etiological role, resulting in the predisposition of individuals to CRC. Genetic alterations cause the dysregulation of signaling pathways leading to drug resistance, the inhibition of apoptosis and the induction of proliferation, invasion and migration, resulting in CRC development and metastasis. Timely detection and effective precision therapies based on the present knowledge of CRC is essential for successful treatment and patient survival. The present review presents the CRC incidence, risk factors, dysregulated signaling pathways and targeted therapies.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2010, coincident with the 100th anniversary of Flexner's sentinel report, the Carnegie Foundation published an updated review of North American medical education and challenged medical schools to initiate further educational reforms. Specific recommendations pertained to a) ensuring standardized outcomes while allowing for individualized processes, b) integrating foundational knowledge with clinical experience, c) cultivating habits of inquiry and innovation and d) professional identity formation. As we approach the 10-year anniversary of this latest report, we sought to determine what type of curricular revisions have been emerging within the past decade and what types of challenges have been encountered along the way?MethodsIn 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 166 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited North American Medical Schools, using the points of contact (educational deans) that were listed in a publicly available, Association of American Medical Colleges database. Free text comments were grouped into themes using the constant-comparative technique.ResultsSixty unique responses yielding a 36.14% response rate. The distribution of responses was proportionally representative of the distribution of public vs. private, old vs. new vs. established North American medical schools. Self-reported curricular changes aggregated into five main themes: Changes in curricular structure/organization, changes in curricular content, changes in curricular delivery, changes in assessment, and changes involving increased use of technology/informatics. Challenges were predominantly focused on overcoming faculty resistance, faculty development, securing adequate resourcing, change management, and competition for limited amounts of curricular time.ConclusionsChanges in curricular organization, content, delivery, assessment and the use of technology reflect reforms that are broad and deep. Empowering faculty to "let go" of familiar constructs/processes requires strong leadership, particularly when initiating particularly disruptive curricular changes, such as relocating the Step 1 examination or shifting to a competency-based curriculum. While North American medical schools are responding to the calls for action described in the second (2010) Carnegie Foundation report, the full vision has yet to be achieved.

Project description:Background:The aim of this survey was to determine the level of awareness and understanding of peer review and peer review models amongst junior hospital doctors and whether this influences clinical decision-making. Methods:A 30-question online anonymous survey was developed aimed at determining awareness of peer review models and the purpose of peer review, perceived trustworthiness of different peer review models and the role of peer review in clinical decision-making. It was sent to 800 trainee doctors in medical specialties on the University College London Partners trainee database. Results:The response rate was (178/800) 22%. Most respondents were specialist registrars. Checking that research is conducted correctly (152/178, 85%) and the data interpreted correctly (148/178, 83%) were viewed as the most important purposes of peer review. Most respondents were aware of open (133/178, 75%), double-blind (125/178, 70%) and single-blind peer review (121/178, 68%). 101/178 (57%) had heard of collaborative, 87/178 (49%) of post publication and 29/178 (16%) of decoupled peer review. Of those who were aware of double-blind, single-blind open and collaborative peer review, 85 (68%), 82 (68%), 74 (56%) and 24 (24%), respectively, understood how they worked. The NEJM, Lancet and The BMJ were deemed to have most trustworthy peer review, 137/178 (77%), 129/178 (72%) and 115/178 (65%), respectively. That peer review had taken place was important for a journal content to be used for clinical decision-making 152/178 (85%), but the ability to see peer review reports was not as important 22/178 (12%). Most felt there was a need for peer review training and that this should be at the specialist registrar stage of training. Conclusions:Junior hospital doctors view peer review to be important as a means of quality control, but do not value the ability to scrutinize peer review themselves. The unquestioning acceptance of peer review as final validation in the field of medicine emphasises not only the responsibility held by medical journals to ensure peer review is done well but also the need to raise awareness amongst the medical community of the limitations of the current peer review process.

Dataset Information

Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

Publications

Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets