peer review

Biology

(noun)

The scholarly process whereby manuscripts intended to be published in an academic journal are reviewed by independent researchers to evaluate the contribution, importance, and accuracy of the manuscript's contents.

Writing

(verb)

Assessment, before publication, by an authority or authorities in the pertinent field of study, of the written form of an idea, hypothesis, theory, and/or written discussion of such.

Related Terms

  • Superlatives
  • triangulate
  • ADAM method
  • editing
  • proofreading
  • hyperbole
  • Hyperbole

(noun)

the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers)

Related Terms

  • Superlatives
  • triangulate
  • ADAM method
  • editing
  • proofreading
  • hyperbole
  • Hyperbole
Statistics

(noun)

the scholarly process whereby manuscripts intended to be published in an academic journal are reviewed by independent researchers (referees) to evaluate the contribution, i.e. the importance, novelty and accuracy of the manuscript's contents

Related Terms

  • placebo effect
  • confounding variable
  • prognostic

Examples of peer review in the following topics:

  • Publishing Scientific Work

    • Publication of scientific research in a peer-reviewed journal allows other scientists access to the research.
    • Instead, most scientists present their results in peer-reviewed manuscripts that are published in scientific journals.
    • Peer-reviewed manuscripts are scientific papers that are reviewed by a scientist's colleagues or peers.
    • The process of peer review helps to ensure that the research described in a scientific paper or grant proposal is original, significant, logical, and thorough.
    • Grant proposals, which are requests for research funding, are also subject to peer review.
  • The Species Concept in Microbiology

    • The International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology/International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSB/IJSEM) is a peer-reviewed journal that acts as the official international forum for the publication of new prokaryotic taxa.
    • If a species is published in a different peer review journal, the author can submit a request to IJSEM with the appropriate description.
  • Browsing Content and Text Online

    • Most scholarly articles in print journals undergo a peer-review process, in which several readers must examine and approve the content for publication.
    • Many (though not all) articles on Google Scholar are peer reviewed as well.
    • If your source is a peer-reviewed article, that is an indicator of high-quality material.
    • You can also look for information presented on organizational websites and in peer-reviewed online journals.
  • Analytical Epidemiology

    • Epidemiologists help with study design, collection and statistical analysis of data, and interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review).
  • Tools for commit review

    • Discuss how human-centered commit review can be linked with automated buildbots that may or may not be a hard gateway to the central repository.
    • Aside from the obvious technical benefits of peer review (see the section called "Practice Conspicuous Code Review"), commit emails help create a sense of community, because they establish a shared environment in which people can react to events (commits) that they know are visible to others as well.
    • If they have to click on a URL to review the change, most won't do it, because that requires a new action instead of a continuation of what they were already doing.
    • Convenient reviewing and commenting is a cornerstone of cooperative development, and much too important to do without. )
    • That is, when someone reviews a commit and writes a response, their response should be automatically directed toward the human development list, where technical issues are normally discussed.
  • Practice Conspicuous Code Review

    • Commit review (sometimes just called code review) is the practice of reviewing commits as they come in, looking for bugs and possible improvements.
    • There are a couple of reasons to focus on reviewing changes, rather than on reviewing code that's been around for a while.
    • It's the most obvious example of peer review in the open source world, and directly helps to maintain software quality.
    • Reviews should be public.
    • Start doing reviews from very first commit.
  • Review Techniques

    • The four methods of collecting performance review data: objective production, personnel, judgmental evaluation, and peer or self evaluation.
  • Behavior Modification

    • In the above example, this would involve a student-teacher conference with a review of the relevant material, and calling on the student when it is evident that she knows the answer to the question posed.
    • A student receives an intrinsic reinforcer by correctly answering in the presence of peers, thus increasing self-esteem and confidence.
    • Reduction in the frequency of rewards--a gradual decrease the amount of one-on-one review with the student before class discussion.
  • Peer Groups

    • The influence of the peer group typically peaks during adolescence.
    • Among peers, children learn to form relationships on their own.
    • Peer groups can also serve as a venue for teaching members gender roles.
    • As members of peer groups interconnect, and agree, a normative code arises.
    • The term "peer pressure" is often used to describe instances where an individual feels indirectly pressured into changing their behavior to match that of their peers.
  • Delivering Constructive Feedback

    • Most often, 360-degree feedback will include opinions from an employee's subordinates, peers, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation.
    • The 360-degree assessment may be contrasted with "upward feedback," where managers are given feedback only by their direct reports, or with a traditional performance appraisal, in which employees are most often reviewed only by their managers.
    • At the end of a project, team members benefit from reviewing how they worked together, how well they met the project objectives, and whether they achieved the planned outcome.
    • This after-action review entails a candid analysis of work product, communication practices, individual effort, coordination and planning, and other key aspects related to the project.
Subjects
  • Accounting
  • Algebra
  • Art History
  • Biology
  • Business
  • Calculus
  • Chemistry
  • Communications
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Marketing
  • Microbiology
  • Physics
  • Physiology
  • Political Science
  • Psychology
  • Sociology
  • Statistics
  • U.S. History
  • World History
  • Writing

Except where noted, content and user contributions on this site are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 with attribution required.