Does a peer review group consensus process for MR-Linac patients affect clinical care? Evaluation of impact and feasibility.

Background and purpose: Peer review is an important component of quality assurance in radiotherapy. To our knowledge, there are no studies reporting on the feasibility and outcomes of the peer review process for magnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) on the MR linear accelerator (MR-Linac) despite the planning complexity involved and its evolving clinical indications. This study aimed to quantify the rate of change in treatment plans post-peer review and the time and resources required. Materials and methods: Fifty-five cases presented at weekly MR-Linac peer review meetings across two centres from 8 June to 21 September 2023 were prospectively collected. Cases were analysed to determine the rate and extent of plan changes based on the Peer Review Audit Tool for radiation oncology (PRAT) developed by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR). Results: Peer review resulted in changes to 36.4 % of treatment plans (n = 20), with 3.6 % (n = 2) having major changes requiring deferment of treatment. The most frequent changes were to organs at risk (OAR) volumes involving both delineation and increased OAR sparing (16.4 %, n = 9), total dose and fractionation (10.9 %, n = 6) and target volume dose coverage (5.5 %, n = 3). Patients with SBRT plans (39.1 % cf 22.2 %), oligometastatic/oligoprogressive sites (38.1 % cf 30.7 %) and reirradiation cases (41.2 % cf 34.2 %) had higher rates of change. Cases took a mean of 7 min (range 2-15 minutes) to discuss. Conclusion: The high rates of plan changes support the value of peer review in MRgRT. We recommend, where possible that all MRgRT cases, particularly those involving SBRT plans, oligometastatic/oligoprogressive sites, and/or reirradiation, be subject to peer review.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl).

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Poland and co-rapporteur Member State Hungary for the pesticide active substance triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl) and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl) as a herbicide on established pasture and non-recreational amenity grassland (field use). MRLs were assessed in rice. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Phthorimaea operculella granulovirus.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, The Netherlands for the pesticide active substance Phthorimaea operculella granulovirus are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of Phthorimaea operculella granulovirus as an insecticide on tomato (field and greenhouse uses) and on potato (field use) via spraying (tractor drawn or knapsack sprayers) or overhead irrigation. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Pythium oligandrum strain B301.

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Belgium for the pesticide active substance Pythium oligandrum strain B301 and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of Pythium oligandrum strain B301 as a resistance inducer/elicitor to control trunk diseases on grapevines. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride).

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Finland, and co-rapporteur Member State, Estonia, for the pesticide active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of mepiquat chloride as a plant growth regulator on cereals and grass (field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

How and why eLife selects papers for peer review.

When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance paraffin oil (CAS 8042-47-5, chain lengths C17-C31).

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Greece, and co-rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance paraffin oil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of paraffin oil as an acaricide and insecticide on potatoes, ornamentals (flower bulbs) and orchards (pear/apple), on pome fruit and stone fruit, on field and permanent protected fruiting vegetables and on field and permanent protected roses and on citrus. The reliable end points appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Cryptic late-onset myocarditis after coronavirus vaccination.

As we enter a new era of mRNA-based therapeutics, evidence on genetic or environmental factors that might predispose to unknown off-target side effects, gains in importance. Among these factors, exercise appears likely to have influenced otherwise cryptic cases of early-onset postvaccination myocarditis. And the existence of a distinct late-onset myocarditis is now being recognized. Here, three case-history reports suggest crypticity (the author's own case), unless provoked by a preexisting cardiac morbidity (one case), or by immune checkpoint blockade to enhance anticancer autoimmunity (several cases). These reports are supported by noninvasive fluorodeoxyglucose-based cardiac scan comparisons of multiple vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. In pre-pandemic decades, applications for funds by the leading innovator in mRNA-based therapeutics seldom gained peer-review approval. Thus, at the start of the pandemic, the meager data on such side effects could justify only emergency approval. We must do better.

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals.

Background: Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts' quality and the quality of the peer review process. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate structured peer review implementation by: 1) exploring whether and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing reviewer agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions. Methods: Structured peer review consisting of nine questions was piloted in August 2022 in 220 Elsevier journals. We randomly selected 10% of these journals across all fields and IF quartiles and included manuscripts that received two review reports in the first 2 months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. Eight questions had open-ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. The reviews could also leave Comments-to-Author and Comments-to-Editor. Answers were independently analysed by two raters, using qualitative methods. Results: Almost all the reviewers (n = 196, 92%) provided answers to all questions even though these questions were not mandatory in the system. The longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) was for reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility. The reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (of 72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and the lowest (of 53%) for assessing whether interpretation of the results was supported by data, and for assessing whether the statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (52%). Two thirds of the reviewers (n = 145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, of which 105 (49%) resembled traditional peer review reports. These reports contained a Md of 4 (IQR 3 to 5) topics covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period from 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P = 0.0275). Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that reviewers successfully adapted to the new review format, and that they covered more topics than in their traditional reports. Individual question analysis indicated the greatest disagreement regarding the interpretation of the results and the conducting and the reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomized trial, and further studies should be performed to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine whether structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or better improvement of manuscripts.

Assessing ChatGPT's ability to emulate human reviewers in scientific research: A descriptive and qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is an AI platform whose relevance in the peer review of scientific articles is steadily growing. Nonetheless, it has sparked debates over its potential biases and inaccuracies. This study aims to assess ChatGPT's ability to qualitatively emulate human reviewers in scientific research. METHODS: We included the first submitted version of the latest twenty original research articles published by the 3rd of July 2023, in a high-profile medical journal. Each article underwent evaluation by a minimum of three human reviewers during the initial review stage. Subsequently, three researchers with medical backgrounds and expertise in manuscript revision, independently and qualitatively assessed the agreement between the peer reviews generated by ChatGPT version GPT-4 and the comments provided by human reviewers for these articles. The level of agreement was categorized into complete, partial, none, or contradictory. RESULTS: 720 human reviewers' comments were assessed. There was a good agreement between the three assessors (Overall kappa >0.6). ChatGPT's comments demonstrated complete agreement in terms of quality and substance with 48 (6.7 %) human reviewers' comments, partially agreed with 92 (12.8 %), identifying issues necessitating further elaboration or recommending supplementary steps to address concerns, had no agreement with a significant 565 (78.5 %), and contradicted 15 (2.1 %). ChatGPT comments on methods had the lowest proportion of complete agreement (13 comments, 3.6 %), while general comments on the manuscript displayed the highest proportion of complete agreement (17 comments, 22.1 %). CONCLUSION: ChatGPT version GPT-4 has a limited ability to emulate human reviewers within the peer review process of scientific research.

Assessing the impact of trained Radiologist Assistants in a busy emergency teleradiology practice: a comprehensive evaluation.

PURPOSE: This study aims to study the feasibility and usefulness of trained Radiologist Assistants in a busy emergency teleradiology practice. METHOD: This is a retrospective study over a 21-month period (January 2021 to September 2022). The study analysed archived data from 247118 peer review studies performed by Radiologist Assistants (RAs) out of a total case volume of 828526 and evaluated the rate of discrepancies, the study types commonly noted to have discrepancies, and the severity of errors. These missed findings were brought to the attention of the radiologists for approval and further decision-making. RESULTS: Peer review by RAs was performed on 30% (n = 247118) of the total volume 828526 studies reported, and yielded additional findings including but not limited to fractures (218; 23%), hemorrhage,(94; 10%) pulmonary thromboembolism, (n = 104; 11%), Calculus (n = 75; 8%) lesion (n = 66; 5%), appendicitis(n = 50; 4%) and others. These were brought to the attention of the radiologist, who agreed in 97% (1279 out of 1318) of cases, and communicated the same to the referring facility, with an addended report. CONCLUSION: Trained RAs can provide value to the peer review program of a busy teleradiology practice and decrease errors. This may be useful to meet the ongoing radiologist shortages.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance lenacil.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Belgium, and co-rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance lenacil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of lenacil as a herbicide on sugar and fodder beet (field use). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Behind the curtain of Australasian Psychiatry: The practice of a medical journal and a call for reviewers.

The process of medical scientific journal publishing merits further explanation for authors and readers. Prospective authors need to understand the scope of the journal and the article types that are published. We give an overview of the editorial process, including selection of reviewers, peer review and decisions regarding revision, acceptance and rejection of papers for Australasian Psychiatry. We encourage authors and readers to submit papers, and volunteer as peer reviewers, working together with the journal editorial team.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substance difenoconazole in light of confirmatory data submitted.

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Spain, for the pesticide active substance difenoconazole are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory information with regard to the consumer risk assessment. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of difenoconazole as a fungicide on pome fruit, carrot, wheat, barley, triticale, rye and oats. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and/or literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Concerns were not identified.

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of 'publish or perish'. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.