ABSTRACT
Valorar los criterios utilizados por los directores de revistas biomédicas cubanas para la selección de sus árbitros. Métodos: Se realizó una investigación descriptiva entre septiembre del año 2013 y diciembre de 2014. Se aplicó y se validó un cuestionario enviado por vía electrónica a 21 directores escogidos por muestreo de conveniencia y disponibilidad para participar. La muestra la constituyeron 14 directores. Se exploraron variables relacionadas con el proceso de arbitraje y la selección de los árbitros. Los datos se ingresaron en una base de datos creada al efecto con el programa SPSS versión 15.0. en español. Los resultados se expresaron en valores absolutos y porcentajes. Resultados: El prestigio científico fue el criterio de selección marcado por 13 (85,7 por ciento) directores. La característica señalada como indispensable por todos los directores fue la actualización del árbitro en el tema a evaluar. En segundo lugar mencionaron el compromiso de ser ético y responsable, la objetividad en el dictamen, y el gestionar la información pertinente; esta última condición fue muy valorada. Entre las habilidades indispensables en un árbitro, 8 directores declararon que fueran capaces de detectar errores graves de forma y de contenido y problemas metodológicos que afecten la calidad del texto. Conclusiones: Los criterios adoptados por los directores para la selección de árbitros denotan una orientación objetiva. No obstante, deben establecerse pautas concretas que establezcan las condiciones y habilidades indispensables para el buen desempeño de un árbitro. Esto facilitaría la gestión de selección de estos expertos(AU)
To assess the criteria used by the Cuban medical journal editors for the selection of peer reviewers. Methods: A descriptive research study was conducted from September 2013 to December 2014. A questionnaire was administered and validated, which was sent by e-mail to 21 editors selected through convenience sampling and willingness to participate in the study. The sample was 14 editors. Several variables related to review process and selection of reviewers were explored. Data were entered into a database created for this purpose with the SPSS 15.0 version software in Spanish. The results were given in absolute figures and percentages. Results: The scientific prestige was the selection criterion stated by 13 (85.7 percent) editors. The characteristic that all the editors pointed out as indispensable was update in terms of evaluation by the reviewer. In the second place, they listed the commitment to ethics and responsibility, objective reporting and relevant information management, the latter was highly assessed by the participants. Among the indispensable skills of a reviewer, eight editors stated that they should be able to detect serious mistakes in form and content and the methodological problems affecting the quality of text. Conclusions: The criteria of editors for the selection of peer reviewers show an objective orientation. However, specific guidelines should be set to state the indispensable skills and conditions for good performance of reviewers, which would facilitate the process of selection of these experts(AU)
Subject(s)
Peer Review/methods , Negotiating/methods , Scientific and Technical Publications , Epidemiology, Descriptive , CubaABSTRACT
Objective To explore the application of projection pursuit model in anti-assessment on peer reviewer of scientific research project,discussing the rational of this application.Methods Establishing the projection pursuit model of anti-assessment on peer reviewer,with the best projection direction as a weight,making an evaluation on the peer reviewer,and sequencing experts by projection value.Results The projection pursuit model is stable and scientific,the importance of index ranking as correlation coefficient＞ dispersion＞ hit rate＞ synthetic dispersion＞ self dispersion ratio.Conclusions The application of projection pursuit model in anti-assessment on peer reviewer of scientific research project,is reasonable and practicable.
ABSTRACT
Peer review is the pillar of the integrity of science communication. It is often beset with flaws as well as accusations of unreliability and lack of predictive validity. 'Rational cheating' by reviewers is a threat to the validity of peer review. It may diminish the value of good papers by unfavourable appraisals of the reviewers whose own works have lower scientific merits. This article analyzes the mechanics and defects of peer review and focuses on rational cheating in peer review, its implications, and options to restrain it.
Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research/ethics , Societies, Medical/ethicsABSTRACT
The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences has in its 25 years “Silver Jubilee” achieved another milestone of being visible to the biomedical community when it was accepted in PubMed. The journal aim to increase its readership so as to increase impact in the biomedical field amongst its Asian readers despite having a high rejection rate. This was done to maintain quality of the manuscripts published over the years. PubMed listing should enable more manuscripts to be cited as its the leading biomedical journal for the Asian community.
ABSTRACT
Four Years Reports of "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" during 2001 to 2005 were evaluated by 18 Editorial Board of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. We investigated the articles to specific fields and rejection rate etc. by different section chiefs. Although several problems concerning review time duration and rejection guideline issues indicated but generally all reviewer processes proved relatively clear and concise criteria. Through these objective and systematic evaluation processes, "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" will develop a good journal.
Subject(s)
Evaluation Studies as TopicABSTRACT
Four Years Reports of "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" during 2001 to 2005 were evaluated by 18 Editorial Board of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. We investigated the articles to specific fields and rejection rate etc. by different section chiefs. Although several problems concerning review time duration and rejection guideline issues indicated but generally all reviewer processes proved relatively clear and concise criteria. Through these objective and systematic evaluation processes, "Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association" will develop a good journal.
Subject(s)
Evaluation Studies as TopicABSTRACT
Two Years Reports of "Journal of Korean Neuropychiatric Association" during 2001 to 2003 were evaluated by 17 Editorial Board of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association. We investigated the articles to specific fields and rejection rate etc. by different section chiefs. Although several problems concerning review time duration and rejection guideline issues indicated but generally all reviewer processes proved relatively clear and concise criteria. Through these objective and systematic evaluation processes, "Journal of Korean Neuropychiatric Association" will develope a good journal.
Subject(s)
Evaluation Studies as TopicABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To survey the prevalence of cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs) and to analyze the ergonomic factors in the paper reviewing workers. METHOD: Five hundreds and twenty subjects of paper reviewers were collected from 'National Medical Insurance Association' who had been exposed to risky working environment regarding CTDs. The subjects were first screened by occupational medicine specialists and confirmed by physiatrist. The subjects were also examined by serologic test, radiologic imaging, and electro diagnostic study. Ergonomists analyzed the job element to identify the risk factors by baseline checklist of CTDs. RESULTS: Among the workers, 51 (9.8%) of 520 were confirmed to CTDs, the prevalance of myofascial pain syndrome was 22 (43.1%), that of medial epicondylitis was 13 (25.5)%, lateral epicondylitis 8 (15.7%) and others. Pain scale of National Industrial Occupational Safety Health Institute symtoms criteria was highest in the shoulder girdle and the next was in the neck, in the wirst and fingers. The ergonomic risk score was highest 2.56 in the 'verifying' job, and the next 2.20 in 'the 2nd examination' job and 'the 1st examination' job, 1.72 in 'correcting' job. CONCLUSION: The result would be helpful for the prevention and management of CTDs in the paper reviewing workers.