Background: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers’ comments. Methods: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January – 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. Results: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes “writing criteria” (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the “methods” (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. Conclusions: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called “Degree of data transformation” to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.
MULTIFILE
This study shows how learner initiatives are taken during classroom discussions where the teacher seeks to make room for subjectification. Using Conversation Analysis, subjectification can be observed when students take the freedom to express themselves as subjects through learner initiatives. Drawing on data from classroom discussions in language and literature lessons in the mother tongue, the authors find that learner initiatives can be observed in three different ways: agreement, request for information, counter-response. A learner initiative in the form of an agreement appears to function mostly as a continuer and prompts the previous speaker to reclaim the turn, while the I-R-F structure remains visible. In contrast, making a request for information or giving a counter-response ensures mostly a breakthrough of the I-R-F-structure and leads to a dialogical participation framework in which multiple students participate. Findings illustrate that by making a request for information or giving a counter-response, students not only act as an independent individual, but also encourage his peers to do so.
Objectives There is a broad call for change towards € new era' quality systems in healthcare, in which the focus lies on learning and improving. A promising way to establish this in general practice care is to combine audit and feedback with peer group discussion. However, it is not known what different stakeholders think of this type of quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the opinions of different stakeholders in general practice on peer discussion of audit and feedback and on its opportunities and risks. Second, their thoughts on transparency versus accountability, regarding this system, were studied. Design An exploratory qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm. Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions were held and coded using thematic analysis. Included stakeholders were general practitioners (GP), patients, professional organisations and insurance companies. Setting General practice in the Netherlands. Participants 22 participants were purposively sampled for eight interviews and two focus group discussions. Results Three main opportunities of peer discussion of audit and feedback were identified: deeper levels of reflection on data, adding context to numbers and more ownership; and three main risks: handling of unwilling colleagues, lacking a safe group and the necessity of patient involvement. An additional theme concerned disagreement on the amount of transparency to be offered: insurance companies and patients advocated for complete transparency on data and improvement of outcomes, while GPs and professional organisations urged to restrict transparency to giving insight into the process. Conclusions Peer discussion of audit and feedback could be part of a change movement, towards a quality system based on learning and trust, that is initiated by the profession. Creating a safe learning environment and involving patients is key herein. Caution is needed when complete transparency is asked, since it could jeopardise practitioners' reflection and learning in safety.
“Empowering learners to create a sustainable future” This is the mission of Centre of Expertise Mission-Zero at The Hague University of Applied Sciences (THUAS). The postdoc candidate will expand the existing knowledge on biomimicry, which she teaches and researches, as a strategy to fulfil the mission of Mission-Zero. We know when tackling a design challenge, teams have difficulties sifting through the mass of information they encounter. The candidate aims to recognize the value of systematic biomimicry, leading the way towards the ecosystems services we need tomorrow (Pedersen Zari, 2017). Globally, biomimicry demonstrates strategies contributing to solving global challenges such as Urban Heat Islands (UHI) and human interferences, rethinking how climate and circular challenges are approached. Examples like Eastgate building (Pearce, 2016) have demonstrated successes in the field. While biomimicry offers guidelines and methodology, there is insufficient research on complex problem solving that systems-thinking requires. Our research question: Which factors are needed to help (novice) professionals initiate systems-thinking methods as part of their strategy? A solution should enable them to approach challenges in a systems-thinking manner just like nature does, to regenerate and resume projects. Our focus lies with challenges in two industries with many unsustainable practices and where a sizeable impact is possible: the built environment (Circularity Gap, 2021) and fashion (Joung, 2014). Mission Zero has identified a high demand for Biomimicry in these industries. This critical approach: 1) studies existing biomimetic tools, testing and defining gaps; 2) identifies needs of educators and professionals during and after an inter-disciplinary minor at The Hague University; and, 3) translates findings into shareable best practices through publications of results. Findings will be implemented into tangible engaging tools for educational and professional settings. Knowledge will be inclusive and disseminated to large audiences by focusing on communication through social media and intervention conferences.
