Contents 1 Professional 2 Scholarly 3 Government policy 4 Medical 5 See also 6 References


Professional[edit] Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is common in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[citation needed] Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review.[1][2][3] WA prototype[clarification needed] professional peer-review process was recommended in the Ethics 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's condition 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 care.[4] Professional peer review is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review.[5] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[6] Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[7][8] law,[9][10] engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[11] Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.[12][13]


Scholarly[edit] Main article: Scholarly peer review Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book. The peer review helps the 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. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but it does by no means prevent publication of invalid research. Traditionally, peer reviewers have been anonymous, but there is currently a significant amount of open peer review, where the comments are visible to readers, generally with the identities of the peer reviewers disclosed as well.


Government policy[edit] Further information: U.S. Government peer review policies 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.[14] In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion.[15] Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, 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 meet 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 expert 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 made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies. The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the California Governor signed into law Senate Bill 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 be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.[16]


Medical[edit] Medical peer review may be distinguished in 4 classifications: 1) clinical peer review; 2) peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses;[17][18] 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.[19] Additionally, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.[20][21] Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.[citation needed]


See also[edit] Collaborative document review Objectivity (philosophy) Academic publishing Scientific literature


References[edit] ^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Retrieved 21 August 2016.  ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001.  ^ Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-851053-5.  ^ 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.  ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Ann. Intern. Med. 118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628.  ^ Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Ratener P, Read WA, Morrison K; Weinstein; Ratener; Read; Morrison (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". Am. J. Public Health. 68 (4): 394–401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394. PMC 1653950 . PMID 645987. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ "AICPA Peer Review Manual". American Institute of CPAs. Retrieved October 4, 2010.  ^ 2012 Peer Review Program Manual ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. Retrieved October 4, 2010.  ^ "Peer Review Ratings". Martindale. Retrieved October 4, 2010.  ^ "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved October 4, 2010.  ^ Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18: 105–108. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals  ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (9): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2.  ^ Mutual Learning Programme – Peer Reviews ^ Peer Review and Assessment in Social Inclusion—Evaluations par les pairs ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 2017-03-30.  ^ Medschool.ucsf.edu ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M; Dieckman; Herdtner; Dugan; Roche (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17–20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142.  ^ (page 131) ^ Ama-assn.org Archived March 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peer_review&oldid=820773722" Categories: Peer reviewHidden categories: CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors listWebarchive template wayback linksArticles with limited geographic scope from October 2015Use mdy dates from October 2012All articles with unsourced statementsArticles with unsourced statements from September 2017Wikipedia articles needing clarification from October 2017Articles with unsourced statements from December 2015Broad-concept articles


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version In other projects Wikimedia CommonsWikiquote Languages AfrikaansالعربيةБългарскиCatalàČeštinaDanskDeutschΕλληνικάEspañolفارسیFrançaisGalego한국어HrvatskiBahasa IndonesiaInterlinguaÍslenskaItalianoעבריתMagyarമലയാളംBahasa MelayuNederlands日本語NorskPolskiPortuguêsQaraqalpaqshaRomânăРусскийSimple EnglishSlovenčinaSlovenščinaSrpskohrvatski / српскохрватскиSuomiSvenskaไทยTürkçeУкраїнськаTiếng Việt吴语粵語中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 16 January 2018, at 14:56. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.220","walltime":"0.296","ppvisitednodes":{"value":1343,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":40699,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":1706,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":12,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":6,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 267.380 1 -total"," 40.63% 108.647 1 Template:Reflist"," 17.09% 45.694 6 Template:Cite_web"," 13.95% 37.311 1 Template:Globalize"," 11.49% 30.724 1 Template:Ambox"," 10.79% 28.854 8 Template:Cite_journal"," 9.71% 25.956 2 Template:Fix"," 9.32% 24.908 1 Template:About"," 7.86% 21.026 1 Template:Fact"," 7.41% 19.812 1 Template:Clarify"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.110","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":4758231,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1324","timestamp":"20180219030229","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":96,"wgHostname":"mw1275"});});


Peer_review - Photos and All Basic Informations

Peer_review More Links

Wikipedia:Peer ReviewPeer Review (disambiguation)The Independent ReviewWikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic BiasTalk:Peer ReviewWikipedia:Article WizardHelp:Maintenance Template RemovalEnlargeNational Institutes Of HealthGrant (money)Field Of StudyAcademiaScholarly Peer ReviewAcademic PaperWikipedia:Citation NeededHenry OldenburgWikipedia:Please ClarifyAdab Al-TabibAl-RuhawiClinical Peer ReviewSoftware Peer ReviewTechnical Peer ReviewBloom's TaxonomyScholarly Peer ReviewScholarly MethodIdeaExpertEditor-in-chiefEditorial BoardU.S. Government Peer Review PoliciesEuropean UnionActive Labour Market PolicySocial InclusionExpert ReportUnited Nations Economic Commission For EuropeUNECE Environmental Performance ReviewsClinical Peer ReviewMedical JournalMedical Peer ReviewAmerican Medical AssociationWikipedia:Citation NeededCollaborative Document ReviewObjectivity (philosophy)Academic PublishingScientific LiteratureUniversity Of FloridaPhilosophical Transactions Of The Royal SocietyDigital Object IdentifierMarie Boas HallOxford University PressInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/0-19-851053-5Digital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierAm. J. Public HealthDigital Object IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierCategory:CS1 Maint: Multiple Names: Authors ListDigital Object IdentifierDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierCategory:CS1 Maint: Multiple Names: Authors ListDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierWayback MachineHelp:CategoryCategory:Peer ReviewCategory:CS1 Maint: Multiple Names: Authors ListCategory:Webarchive Template Wayback LinksCategory:Articles With Limited Geographic Scope From October 2015Category:Use Mdy Dates From October 2012Category:All Articles With Unsourced StatementsCategory:Articles With Unsourced Statements From September 2017Category:Wikipedia Articles Needing Clarification From October 2017Category:Articles With Unsourced Statements From December 2015Category:Broad-concept ArticlesDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link