The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors’ conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the study’s conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.
DOCUMENT
Is het systeem van peer-review nuttig voor lerarenopleidingen? De deelnemers aan een groot project dat daarmee experimenteert reageren overwegend positief: Net als de begeleiders. 'Het leuke is inzicht in elkaars curriculum. Je krijgt energie als je iets mee terugneemt naar je opleiding.'
DOCUMENT
Deze lezing gaat over Peer-review in relatie tot Professionele ruimte, Docent Professionalisering en HRM-beleid. Allereerst gaat het op de drie losse onderdelen in, om daarna terug te keren bij de rol die Peer-review hierbij zou kunnen spelen. MI kan peer review een (bescheiden) rol spelen om te professionaliseringe en daardoor de prof ruimte op te rekken, mits het goed is ingebed in het HR-beleid (niet de instrumenten maar de realiteit) dus actual HRM ipv intended.
DOCUMENT
The Internet offers many opportunities to provide parenting support. An overview of empirical studies in this domain is lacking, and little is known about the design of web based parenting resources and their evaluations, raising questions about its position in the context of parenting intervention programs. This article is a systematic review of empirical studies (n = 75), published between 1998 and 2010, that describe resources of peer and professional online support for parents. These studies generally report positive outcomes of online parenting support. A number of recent experimental studies evaluated effects, including randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs (totaling 1,615 parents and 740 children). A relatively large proportion of the studies in our sample reported a content analysis of e-mails and posts (totaling 15,059 coded messages). The results of this review show that the Internet offers a variety of opportunities for sharing peer support and consulting professionals. The field of study reflects an emphasis on online resources for parents of preschool children, concerning health topics and providing professional support. A range of technologies to facilitate online communication is applied in evaluated Web sites, although the combination of multiple components in one resource is not very common. The first generation of online resources has already changed parenting and parenting support for a large group of parents and professionals. Suggestions for future development and research are discussed.
DOCUMENT
Kwaliteitskader voor de Vereniging Hogescholen en NVAO t.b.v. van het beoordelen en (peer) reviewen van partnerschappen rond samen Opleiden en Inductie, geschreven door een ontwikkelteam in opdracht van het Platform Samen Opleiden en Professionaliseren, de PO-Raad, VO-Raad, MBO-Raad, de Vereniging Hogescholen, VSNU en het Ministerie van OCW.
DOCUMENT
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
Background: In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.Methods: Using software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.Results: Four hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6-18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25-38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance.
DOCUMENT
Ook dit gesprek geeft ons stof tot nadenken, bijvoorbeeld over de kwaliteitsborging middels peer-review: is dat te vergelijken met de feedback van 'critical friends' die zo'n belangrijke rol spelen binnen praktijkgericht onderzoek? Kunnen de critical friends misschien ook uit het praktijkveld komen?
DOCUMENT
Peerreview is een leeractiviteit waarbij studenten elkaar feedback geven. In het hoger onderwijs wordt veel gebruik gemaakt van peerreview. En terecht, want op basis van een grote hoeveelheid onderzoek kan inmiddels worden aangenomen dat peerreview het leerproces kan ondersteunen en de kwaliteit van de leeropbrengsten kan verhogen. Maar dit gebeurt niet vanzelf. Om peerreview effectief in te zetten, is het nodig dat de leeractiviteit goed wordt georganiseerd en daarbij moet aan behoorlijk wat voorwaarden worden voldaan. Dit blijkt nog niet zo eenvoudig. Het organiseren van een effectief peerreviewproces is een complex en vraagt om een vooraf goed beredeneerde aanpak. Wanneer peerreview niet goed wordt voorbereid kan het zelfs averechtse effecten opleveren. Lectoraat Teaching, Learning & Technology onderzoekt daarom hoe peerreview effectief in leerprocessen kan worden ingezet. In deze animatie doorlopen we kort de stappen om tot een beredeneerd peerreview proces te komen.
MULTIFILE
Dit boekje beschrijft een methode voor het reviewen van praktijkgericht onderzoek. Reviewen is kritisch oordelen over een stuk werk. We lichten de methode zo concreet mogelijk toe opdat lectoren, onderzoekers en docentonderzoekers in de kenniscentra in het hbo deze zelf kunnen toepassen. De methode is bruikbaar voor alle domeinen en kenniskringen, dus niet gebonden aan één discipline of vakgebied.
DOCUMENT
