Search results

The purpose of this paper is to report on the use of an innovative peer review approach to identifying and addressing the causes of inappropriate admissions from hospital to nursing homes in South Gloucestershire (SG). It explains the methodology that was developed, the findings of the peer review process and reflects on the effectiveness of the process.

The peer review consisted of two stages. The first stage involved a panel of local stakeholders carrying out an audit of a random selection of cases where people had been assessed as needing permanent nursing or residential care. From this four cases of inappropriate admissions were identified. Stage two involved an externally facilitated process with two peer challenge panels; one of local stakeholders and the other external experts. The two panels analysed the cases of inappropriate admissions, identified the system causes and suggested actions to tackle the issues which were fed back to an audience of local stakeholders.

The combination of case audit and peer review was successful in providing robust challenge to the processes in SG by identifying shortcomings in the system and suggesting actions to improve outcomes.

The approach was taken in one Council area and therefore may not be replicable in another area.

The case study suggests that a peer review approach using both local and external peers, including providers, is an effective way to identify weaknesses in the health and social care processes. The insights offered by external peers and providers is helpful for councils in identifying where to focus resources and suggests that other areas should consider proactive adaptations to the peer review methodology that is offered as part of the LGA’s programme of sector-led improvement.

The case study suggests that a peer review approach could have a positive impact on the quality of care and quality of life for older people who are admitted to hospital.

The case study offers an innovative and original use of the peer review approach in social care that can be shared with other councils and partners. The Southwest Improvement Board have identified it as of particular interest to other areas seeking to work with partners to identify and implement positive change.

Peer review has been with humans for a long time. Its effective inception dates back to World War II resulting information overload, which imposed a quantitative and qualitative screening of publications. Peer review was beset by a number of accusations and critics largely from the biases and subjective aspects of the process including the secrecy in which the processes became standard. Advent of the Internet in the early 1990s provided a manner to open peer review up to make it more transparent, less iniquitous, and more objective. This chapter investigates whether this openness led to a more objective manner of judging scientific publications. Three sites are examined: Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (ETAI), Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), and Faculty of 1000 (F1000). These sites practice open peer review wherein reviewers and authors and their reviews and rebuttals are available for all to see. The chapter examines the different steps taken to allow reviewers and authors to interact and how this allows for the entire community to participate. This new prepublication reviewing of papers has to some extent, alleviated the biases that were previously preponderant and, furthermore, seems to give positive results and feedback. Although recent, experiences seem to have elicited scientists’ acceptance because openness allows for a more objective and fair judgment of research and scholarship. Yet, it will undoubtedly lead to new questions which are examined in this chapter.

This paper seeks to critically examine the principles, mechanisms, and critical success factors of developmental peer review as a way to promote reflection and change in organizations.

This paper calls developmental peer review the structured, managed, and collaborative process whereby reputable others are invited into an organisation to provide feedback and offer guidance on organisational change and improvement. In the paper, the authors use the example of developmental peer review in UK local government both to foreground some of the distinctive aspects of the methodology and to identify some of its critical conditions of use.

The paper argues that this type of initiative often co‐exists with a more judgemental inspection‐oriented double. The institutional framework that surrounds developmental peer review makes it therefore both a powerful and delicate tool. There is a need in this initiative to maintain a dynamic balance to avoid either coercion or collusion in review.

In order to achieve its potential, peer review needs to be clearly framed and constructed as a developmental initiative. In the paper, a number of suggestions of how to do so are offered. If doubts exist on the nature of the exercise, it is likely that people will interpret it as a form of inspection and react defensively, reducing its capacity to trigger learning and transformation.

This paper advances knowledge and understanding about developmental peer review, by drawing on the relevant literature and also analysing a prevalent form of such review in current use in local government organizations in England and Wales.

The purpose of this viewpoint is to spotlight the role of reviewers within the collaborative triad of academic publishing. It argues that the significance of reviewers is often disregarded, leading to a gap in our understanding of the peer review process. This perspective emphasizes reviewers as unsung heroes in the publishing ecosystem, providing intentional and thought-provoking insights into the less-discussed yet impactful developments in the evolving peer review landscape.

Leveraging the author’s distinguished background as a recipient of the Journal of Service Marketing Outstanding Reviewer Award, this paper offers a personal reflection and synthesised viewpoints on the peer review process. Serving as a representative voice for reviewers, it provides insightful perspectives from the vantage point of a peer reviewer, diverging from conventional editorials and commentaries authored by editors.

Acknowledging the shrinking reviewer pool, this viewpoint suggests a mandatory “review for review” system alongside incentives like editorial positions, while considering financial rewards for reviewers. The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in review prompts ethical concerns but offers solutions for handling diverse submissions and dealing with “Reviewer 2.” While embracing open review for its transparency, potential pitfalls surrounding article confidence and copyright require attention. Ultimately, this viewpoint advocates for a collaborative approach, valuing reviewers, exploring innovative solutions, navigating ethical dilemmas in the technological age and implementing transparent practices responsibly for the betterment of scholarly discourse.

This viewpoint highlights the invaluable contributions of reviewers, enriching the scholarly community and promoting intellectual growth.

The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication.

The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci?

Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination.

This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

This paper aims to describe an internal quality enhancement system based on peer reviewing and summarizes the first results of application at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences.

A peer review framework has been developed to evaluate and further develop the teaching programs and practices. The questionnaire-based peer review program included 22 courses and involved almost 100 lecturers. Peer review outcomes are completed by end-of-semester student course evaluations.

The results allow us to map differences between lecturers and courses and to identify correlations between the assessment criteria applied for peer reviewing.

The implemented framework implies individual, faculty and organizational development to enhance a deeper understanding of how to create quality in teaching programs and processes. Secondly, the peer review program contributes to the establishment of a learning community with a growing common understanding of what is considered good quality in business education.

The paper is valuable as a guide to faculty management wishing to implement a peer review framework within their own institution. The novelty of the presented approach is that it focuses on a semester-long teaching performance including classroom performance, course outlines, teaching materials, course requirements and processes and means of student performance assessments.

The Internet provides researchers with exciting new opportunities for finding information and communicating with each other. However the process of peer review is something of a Cinderella in all this. Peer review in biomedical disciplines is still largely carried out using hard copy and the postal system even if the authors’ text files are used for the production of the paper or electronic journal. This article introduces one of the Electronic Libraries (eLib) projects, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). The project – Electronic Submission and Peer Review (ESPERE) – is examining the cultural and technical problems of implementing an electronic peer review process for biomedical academics and learned society publishers. The paper describes preliminary work in discovering the issues involved and describes interviews with seven learned society publishers, analysis of a questionnaire sent to 200 editorial board members and a focus group of five biomedical academics. Academics and learned publishers were enthusiastic about electronic peer review and the possibilities which it offers for a less costly, more streamlined and more effective process. Use of the Internet makes collaborative and interactive refereeing a practical option and allows academics from countries all over the world to take part.

To provide a best practice framework for peer review via teaching observation as a method of appraising teaching performance within UK higher education (HE) institutions.

The paper uses secondary data analysis via the current literature on peer review and peer appraisal, as well as use of primary data obtained via the design, implementation and analysis of semi‐structured interviews with management and teaching staff within the Faculty of Business and Management Science within a fictitiously named Riverbank University.

Provides a best practice framework for peer review based on the literature, where the case study university benchmarks well against the framework and an insight into the perceptions of teaching staff on the scheme.

The sample of 40 teaching staff was from only one faculty, in one university. Before generalising the findings it would be prudent to widen the research to include a larger sample from more universities across the HE sector in the UK.

The research has massive implications for the UK HE sector if peer review is to be used as a method of assessing teaching performance.

The paper is valuable as a guide to senior management wishing to implement a peer observation scheme within their own institution.

This paper aims to test the need in the Australian higher education (HE) sector for a national network for the peer review of assessment in response to the proposed HE standards framework and propose a sector-wide framework for calibrating and assuring achievement standards, both within and across disciplines, through the establishment of a peer review of assessment network (PRAN).

This study used a “proof of concept”approach to test the need for a national network, using consultations (n = 67) which included teleconference meetings [39], face-to-face meetings [2], Skype [1], presentations [19], state-based workshops [6] and a national forum. Quantitative data from evaluation surveys from state-based workshops and national forum were computer-analysed to generate descriptive statistics. Qualitative data arising from open-ended questionnaire responses were analysed through progressive categorisation and data coding designed to identify and refine data themes.

In all, 63 per cent of participants to the state-based workshops were satisfied with the workshop content. A further 29 per cent reported a high level of satisfaction. The interactive group discussions fostered a collaborative approach and facilitated engagement with the workshop content. A total of 58 per cent of participants to the national forum were satisfied with the forum, with a further 40 per cent reporting a high level of satisfaction. Participants indicated that presentation content was informative and covered a diverse range of topics and viewpoints highly relevant to the current clime across the HE sector.

Many participants strongly supported the establishment of a national PRAN, with overwhelming support (88 per cent) for the forum to be made an annual event.

This study contributes to existing literature and provides further evidence for the value of networks in the peer review of assessment to support academics in professional learning and calibration exercises.

The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.

The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.

Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.

The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.