PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Peer Review, Research”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Research peer review: a committee when none is required.

Good research does not occur in isolation. The researcher should choose one or more reviewers to serve as quality monitors of the process. The reviewer(s) should be carefully chosen, and the relationship should be nurtured. When the research is not enhanced by the relationship, new reviewers should be sought even if this delays the research process. A good study has enough glory to share with all reviewers, and a poor study is a heavy burden to bear alone.

Humans↗
PubMed1993

Political intervention in scientific peer review. Research on adolescent sexual behavior.

In 1991, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded funding for a survey of adolescent health risk-taking behavior. The decision overturned a series of scientific and ethical peer and administrative reviews of the research, which had been chosen in a competitive evaluation of proposals to advance knowledge about the prevention of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other diseases. The cancellation, coupled with congressional action to block similar research, left a gap in scientific data about adolescent health risk-taking. The cancellation may also encourage the further use of political criteria in evaluating proposals for scientific research. Procedures for funding scientific research should be reformed to protect peer review from arbitrary political intervention. Through a discussion of this decision and its consequences for AIDS prevention research, principles that justify autonomous peer review are clarified and a reform that could strengthen it is discussed.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1998

Evidence-based practice, research, peer review, and publication.

For about a quarter of a century, concerns have been expressed about published biomedical research. It became more acute after some published research and broad dissemination was found fraudulent. With the emphasis now being placed on scientifically validated or evidence-based practice, it has become more imperative that clinical guidelines be based on credible information in our textbooks and research literature. Since the early 1990s, it has been found that much of the research in our electronic databases does not meet quality standards and often is irrelevant, calling into questions problems with peer review, including the selection and publication process of our journals. This column is devoted to calling attention to these problems not only to CRNAs and other researchers, but also to the consumers of research who often use it to make changes in their practice. It also calls attention to the CRNA community about the movement toward calls for greater accountability in practice, both as to quality and cost, from which the movement toward evidence-based practice, the identification and benchmarking of best practices, and the development and implementation of clinical practice guideline has evolved. To feel ownership in anesthesia-related clinical practice guidelines, CRNAs must become involved in their development and implementation.

Clinical Nursing Research↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Quality assurance reviews: how they differ from peer reviews.

Research papers and reports written by scientists and engineers in the United States Environmental Protection Agency are reviewed by the agency's quality assurance staff. EPA papers and reports are subjected to peer reviews that check for the validity of conclusions and the general agreement with the body of technical knowledge in the subject area. Quality assurance reviews differ from peer reviews in that the focus of the quality assurance review is on the following criteria: Consistency: Were reasonable and consistent units of measurement and generally acceptable formulas used throughout? Are the appropriate number of significant figures reported? Correctness: Were matrix-compatible methods used? Were measurements within the working range of the method? Can measurements be traced to a recognized standard or source (e.g., the National Institute of Standards and Technology)? Can calculations be verified, starting from representative raw data and proceeding to the summary data presented in the paper or report? Coherence: Do the stated conclusions follow from the data presented? Are the assumptions clearly stated? Are inconsistencies between data and conclusions discussed? Clarity: Are special terms and acronyms defined? Can a person with a general technical background in the subject understand the paper or report? Conformance: Did the study follow the test/quality assurance plan, with appropriate calibrations and other quality-control checks, audits, and data validations? If not, is there a discussion of problems? Concordance: Were data quality objectives met? Were the data quality indicator goals achieved for precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness? The importance of these quality assurance review criteria are discussed along with examples from current work.

Authorship↗
PubMed1995

Peer review of nursing research proposals.

The grant review process that operationalizes peer review for the critique, scoring, approval, and selection of research grants for funding may intimidate a novice reviewer. This article describes the peer review panel and process of grant review, specifies the role and responsibilities of the reviewer in the review session, and presents considerations for the evaluation of proposals and the preparation of a written critique. A sample critique is provided.

Nursing Research↗
PubMed1988

Postdoctoral research training of full-time faculty in academic departments of medicine.

This report shows the results of a survey of 5604 faculty in departments of medicine, 4200 of whom had postdoctoral research training. As a follow-up to a previous study of research activity in the same population, this retrospective survey focused on location of training, source of funding, structure of the training program, impact of the training experience on career development, and respondents' recommendations for changes in training programs. A predominant finding is that most postdoctoral training occurred in medical schools, and the primary source of funding was the National Institutes of Health. For faculty members with the MD degree, being an active researcher and principal investigator for a peer-reviewed research grant were associated with length of training. The average length of time between the end of postdoctoral research training and obtaining the first peer-reviewed research grant was 24 months, regardless of length of training, source of training support, training site, or type of academic degree (MD, MD-PhD, or PhD). The results of this survey suggest a tentative formula to be a successful researcher in academic medicine: 2 or more years of postdoctoral research training, including formal course work in the fundamental sciences pertinent to biomedical research; 2 to 3 years of full research support from the academic institution until the first extramural grant is obtained; and commitment of at least 33% of time to research activities. The results also suggest directions for change and improvement in future research training programs.

Education, Medical, Graduate↗