Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 17.261
Account Res ; 2022 Sep 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36121250


In this paper, we introduce the concepts of sensitivity and specificity to mathematically describe the accuracy of the peer review process. Sensitivity refers to the probability that the final decision for a manuscript would be acceptance, provided the manuscript meets the journal standards required for publication (i.e., true positive rate). Specificity refers to the probability that the final decision would be rejection, provided the work does not meet the standards required for publication (i.e., true negative rate). Therefore, in the peer review process, sensitivity measures the ability to correctly accept manuscripts that meet the required standards (true positives) and specificity measures the ability to correctly reject manuscripts that do not meet those quality standards required for publication (true negatives). Sensitivity and specificity values can inform the editor under what conditions the outcome of a peer review process becomes more precise and, therefore, if this does not occur, when the editor must improve the analysis involved in processing the information received from reviewers' reports. Sensitivity and specificity understood in this way can promote the ethical conduct of peer review processes and improve the validity of manuscript editorial decisions.

J Am Coll Radiol ; 2022 Sep 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36126827


OBJECTIVE: To utilize artificial intelligence to facilitate peer review for detection of missed suspicious liver lesions (SLLs) on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). METHODS: This retrospective study included one month of consecutive CTPAs from a multisite teleradiology practice. Visual classification (VC) software analyzed images for the presence (+) or absence (-) of SLLs (>1 cm, >20 HU). Separately, a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm evaluated corresponding reports for description (+) of an SLL (or lack thereof [-]). Studies containing possible missed SLL (VC+/NLP-) were reviewed by three abdominal radiologists in a two-step adjudication process to confirm if an SLL was missed by the interpreting radiologist. The number of VC+/NLP- cases, number of images needing radiologist review, and number of cases with confirmed missed SLL were recorded. Interobserver agreement for SLLs was calculated for the radiologist readers. RESULTS: 2,573 CTPAs were assessed, and 136 were classified as potentially containing missed SLLs (VC+/NLP-). After radiologist review, 13 cases with missed SLL were confirmed, representing 0.5% of analyzed CTs. Using AI, the ratio of CTs requiring review to missed SLL identified was 10:1; the ratio without the help of AI would be at least 66:1. Among the 136 cases reviewed by radiologists, interobserver agreement for SLLs was excellent (κ =0.91). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence can accelerate meaningful peer review by rapidly assessing thousands of examinations to identify potentially clinically significant errors. Although radiologist involvement is necessary, the amount of effort required after initial AI screening is dramatically reduced.

R Soc Open Sci ; 9(9): 210681, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36117870


Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006-2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors.

J Vasc Surg ; 2022 Sep 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36113823


OBJECTIVE: The surgical treatment of claudication can be associated with significant morbidity and cost. There are growing concerns that some patients proceed to interventions without first attempting evidence-based nonoperative management. We employed direct, cross-site, blinded expert review to evaluate the appropriateness of the surgical treatment of claudication. METHODS: We enlisted practicing vascular surgeons to perform retrospective clinical assessments of lower extremity bypass procedures in a statewide clinical registry. Cases were limited to elective, open, infrainguinal bypasses performed for claudication using prosthetic grafts. Reviewing surgeons were randomly assigned 10 cases from a sample of 139 anonymized bypass operations and instructed to evaluate procedural appropriateness based on their expert opinion and evidence-based guidelines for preoperative treatment, namely, antiplatelet, statin, cilostazol, exercise, and smoking cessation therapy as documented in the medical record. Ninety-day episode payments were estimated from a distinct but similar cohort of patients undergoing lower extremity bypass for claudication. RESULTS: Out of 325 total reviews, surgeons stated they would not have recommended bypass in 134 (41%) reviews and deemed bypass inappropriate in 122 (38%) reviews. The most common reason for inappropriateness was lack of preoperative medical and lifestyle therapy, which was present in 63% of reviews where bypass was deemed appropriate and 39% of reviews where bypass was deemed inappropriate (P<.001). Surgeons stated they would have recommended additional preoperative therapy in 65% of reviews where bypass was deemed inappropriate and 35% of reviews where bypass was deemed appropriate (P<.001). Mean total episode payments in a similar cohort of 1,458 patients undergoing elective open lower extremity bypass for claudication were $31,301 (SD $21,219). Extrapolating to the 325 reviews, the 134 reviews in which surgeons would not have recommended bypass were associated with potentially avoidable estimated total payments of $4,194,334, and the 122 reviews in which bypass was deemed inappropriate were associated with potentially avoidable estimated total payments of $3,818,722. CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-site expert peer review study, 40% of lower extremity bypasses were deemed premature and therefore potentially avoidable, primarily due to lack of medical and lifestyle management before surgery. Reviews deemed inappropriate were associated with approximately $4 million in potentially avoidable costs. This approach could inform performance feedback among surgeons to help align clinical practice with evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of claudication.

Cell Rep ; 40(11): 111353, 2022 Sep 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36103819


In this Q&A, Cell Press Community Review Product Manager Matt Pavlovich talks to George Burslem, Dan Larson, Susanne Lens, and Victor Greiff about their experience reviewing manuscripts submitted to Community Review. These scientists share their thoughts on Community Review and other emerging peer review paradigms.

Peer Review, Research
JBI Evid Synth ; 20(9): 2395-2407, 2022 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36081380


OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to describe how a public health approach to legal and illegal psychoactive substance use has been previously defined, and to identify its core values, concepts, activities, and goals. INTRODUCTION: Jurisdictions globally are increasingly endorsing a public health approach to addressing psychoactive substance use. However, there is currently no agreed definition of this approach, and this term has been applied inconsistently in the literature, policy, and practice. A critical first step toward advancing a public health approach to substance use is identifying and articulating its core components. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider all peer-reviewed and gray literature in English focused on conceptualizing, defining, or describing a public health approach to substance use. Our review does not place limitations on populations, psychoactive substance types, or other contextual factors. METHODS: We will search PROSPERO, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Scopus, as well as health and social science databases; websites of prominent nonprofit, civil society, and government agencies/organizations in public health and substance use fields; and reference lists of included articles. Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts of peer-reviewed literature, and 1 reviewer will screen titles/abstracts of gray literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the full-text screening. A data extraction sheet will be pilot tested through double extraction. Findings will be presented as a narrative summary supported by tables and diagrams and, if feasible, a conceptual framework for understanding and applying a public health approach to substance use. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework

Public Health , Substance-Related Disorders , Humans , Peer Review , Review Literature as Topic , Substance-Related Disorders/epidemiology
EFSA J ; 20(8): e07544, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36052014


The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Austria and co-rapporteur Member State Malta for the pesticide active substance abamectin 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 abamectin as an insecticide and acaricide on tomato and strawberry, and updated following the request from Commission to review the exposure and risk assessments as regards birds and mammals, aquatic organisms and soil macroorganisms. The risk assessment to bees and non-target arthropods was also updated. 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.

Can Fam Physician ; 68(9): 633, 2022 09.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36100375

Peer Group , Peer Review , Humans
Can Fam Physician ; 68(9): 632, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36100392

Peer Group , Peer Review , Humans
PLoS One ; 17(9): e0273783, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36103484


The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute authorship to deceased individuals of original studies in the biomedical literature is contentious. Authorship guidelines utilized by journals do not provide a clear consensus framework that is binding on those in the field. To guide and inform the implementation of authorship frameworks it would be useful to understand the extent of the practice in the scientific literature, but studies that have systematically quantified the prevalence of this phenomenon in the biomedical literature have not been performed to date. To address this issue, we quantified the prevalence of publications by deceased authors in the biomedical literature from the period 1990-2020. We screened 2,601,457 peer-reviewed papers from the full text Europe PubMed Central database. We applied natural language processing, stringent filtering and manual curation to identify a final set of 1,439 deceased authors. We then determined these authors published a total of 38,907 papers over their careers with 5,477 published after death. The number of deceased publications has been growing rapidly, a 146-fold increase since the year 2000. This rate of increase was still significant when accounting for the growing total number of publications and pool of authors. We found that more than 50% of deceased author papers were first submitted after the death of the author and that over 60% of these papers failed to acknowledge the deceased authors status. Most deceased authors published less than 10 papers after death but a small pool of 30 authors published significantly more. A pool of 266 authors published more than 90% of their total publications after death. Our analysis indicates that the attribution of deceased authorship in the literature is not an occasional occurrence but a burgeoning trend. A consensus framework to address authorship by deceased scientists is warranted.

Authorship , Publishing , Europe , Humans , Peer Review , PubMed
J Urol ; : 101097JU0000000000002961, 2022 Sep 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36073864
Kidney Int ; 102(4): 683-686, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36150757


Kerr et al. interpret the perspectives of First Nations People striving for kidney health within the United States, Canada, Aotearoa (New Zealand), and Australia. The urgency for First Nations Peoples' perspectives and leadership in kidney health care, research, quality reporting, and publishing was confirmed. Advancing this internationally is within scope of high-impact journals, such as Kidney International. Tracking Sovereignty is a proposed framework supporting First Nation Peoples' representation and leadership within journal submission and publication processes.

J Trauma Nurs ; 29(5): 227, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36095266

Peer Group , Peer Review , Humans
Eur J Neurosci ; 2022 Sep 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36085597


Receiving research grants is among the highlights of an academic career, affirming previous accomplishments and enabling new research endeavors. Much of the process of acquiring research funding, however, belongs to the less favorite duties of many researchers: it is time consuming, often stressful, and, in the majority of cases, unsuccessful. This resentment toward funding acquisition is backed up by empirical research: the current system to distribute research funding, via competitive calls for extensive research applications that undergo peer review, has repeatedly been shown to fail in its task to reliably rank proposals according to their merit, while at the same time being highly inefficient. The simplest, fairest, and broadly supported alternative would be to distribute funding more equally across researchers e.g. by an increase of universities' base funding, thereby saving considerable time that can be spent on research instead. Here, I propose how to combine such a 'funding flat rate' model - or other efficient distribution strategies - with quality control through postponed, non-competitive peer-review using open science practices.

PLoS One ; 17(8): e0273813, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36026494


Peer review, commonly used in grant funding decisions, relies on scientists' ability to evaluate research proposals' quality. Such judgments are sometimes beyond reviewers' discriminatory power and could lead to a reliance on subjective biases, including preferences for lower risk, incremental projects. However, peer reviewers' risk tolerance has not been well studied. We conducted a cross-sectional experiment of peer reviewers' evaluations of mock primary reviewers' comments in which the level and sources of risks and weaknesses were manipulated. Here we show that proposal risks more strongly predicted reviewers' scores than proposal strengths based on mock proposal evaluations. Risk tolerance was not predictive of scores but reviewer scoring leniency was predictive of overall and criteria scores. The evaluation of risks dominates reviewers' evaluation of research proposals and is a source of inter-reviewer variability. These results suggest that reviewer scoring variability may be attributed to the interpretation of proposal risks, and could benefit from intervention to improve the reliability of reviews. Additionally, the valuation of risk drives proposal evaluations and may reduce the chances that risky, but highly impactful science, is supported.

Financing, Organized , Peer Review, Research , Cross-Sectional Studies , Reproducibility of Results