Reliability of Reviewer Ratings in the Manuscript Peer Review Process: An Opportunity for Improvement

Accountability to authors and readers cannot exist without proper peer review practices. Thus, the information a journal seeks from its peer reviewers and how it makes use of this information is paramount. Disagreement amongst peer reviewers can be considerable, resulting in very diverse comments to authors. Incorporating a clear scoring system for key concrete items and requiring referees to provide justification for scores may ensure that reviewers contribute in a consistently fair and effective manner. This article evaluates information collected from reviewers and proposes an example of a system that aims to improve accountability, while having the potential to make it easier for reviewers to perform a more objective review.     

Contradictions and Confounds in Coverage of Obesity: Psychology Journals, Textbooks, and the Media

Although obesity is not listed as a psychiatric condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychologists focus on obesity in their research, clinical practice, and teaching. This article reviews the methods and outcomes of the weight loss research in psychology journal articles, and discusses some of the confounds. These studies focus on comparisons among treatment conditions rather than on the low amounts of weight lost, and do not use clinical criteria for evaluating outcome. Although improvement in physical health is viewed as the reason for weight loss programs, few studies assess physical health. There has been little concern about how weight loss participants feel when they regain weight. Furthermore, the journal peer review process does not encourage paradigm shifts. The article also discusses how the results of the weight loss research studies are covered in undergraduate psychology textbooks and how they are (mis)interpreted by the media. Recommendations for a paradigm shift in the peer review process, coverage in textbooks and the media, are offered.     

Open Review of Science Publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

Open review of science publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review

If a peer review instrument asks concrete questions (defined as items that can only generate disagreement if reviewers have different degrees of expertise), then questionnaires could become more meaningful in terms of resolving subjectivity thus leading to more reviewer agreement. A concrete item questionnaire with well-chosen questions can also help resolve disagreement when reviewers have the same level of expertise. We have recently created the core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) questionnaire for which decision-threshold score levels have been created, but which have not been validated. This prospective validation of these thresholds for the CoRE questionnaire demonstrated strong agreement between reviewer recommendations and their reported score levels when tested prospectively at Clinical Medicine and Research. We conclude that using the CoRE questionnaire will help reduce peer reviewer disagreement. More importantly, when reviewer expertise varies, editors can more easily detect this and decide which opinion reflects the greater expertise.     

Quality and Peer Review of Research: An Adjudicating Role for Editors

Peer review gives research a stamp of approval, but the reviews themselves can be flawed. This is potentially serious for the writer, the journal, and journal user. This study describes shortcomings of the peer review process and condenses them into an explanatory framework involving situational, personal, social, and ethical factors. Some proposals to improve matters are impractical and may make them worse. Some data is offered which illustrates the problem and suggests a potential solution. Informed editors who avoid mechanical approaches engage cautiously and critically with reviews and guard against bias, even in themselves, could make a significant difference.     

On the Nature and Role of Peer Review in Mathematics

For the past three decades, peer review practices have received much attention in the literature. But although this literature covers many research fields, only one previous systematic study has been devoted to the practice of peer review in mathematics, namely a study by Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove from 2010. This lack of attention may be due to a view that peer review in mathematics is more reliable, and therefore less interesting as an object of study, than peer review in other fields. In fact, Geist, Löwe, and Van Kerkhove argue that peer review in mathematics is relatively reliable. At the same time, peer review in mathematics differs from peer review in most, if not all, other fields in that papers submitted to mathematical journals are usually only reviewed by a single referee. Furthermore, recent empirical studies indicate that the referees do not check the papers line by line. I argue that, in spite of this, mathematical practice in general and refereeing practices in particular are such that the common practice of mathematical journals of using just one referee is justified from the point of view of proof validity assessment. The argument is based on interviews I conducted with seven mathematicians.     

Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant

Using Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada (NSERC) statistics, we show that the?$40,000 (Canadian) cost of preparation for a grant application and rejection by peer review in 2007 exceeded that of giving every qualified investigator a direct baseline discovery grant of?$30,000 (average grant). This means the Canadian Federal Government could institute direct grants for 100%?of qualified applicants for the same money. We anticipate that the net result would be more and better research since more research would be conducted at the critical idea or discovery stage. Control of quality is assured through university hiring, promotion and tenure proceedings, journal reviews of submitted work, and the patent process, whose collective scrutiny far exceeds that of grant peer review. The greater efficiency in use of grant funds and increased innovation with baseline funding would provide a means of achieving the goals of the recent Canadian Value for Money and Accountability Review. We suggest that developing countries could leapfrog ahead by adopting from the start science grant systems that encourage innovation.     

Letters to the editor

This article proposes that an assessment of commercial feasibility should be integrated as a prerequisite for human clinical testing to improve the quality and relevance of materials being investigated, as an ethical aspect for human subject protection, and as a means of improving accountability where clinical development is funded on promises of successful translational research. A commercial feasibility analysis is not currently required to justify human clinical testing, but is assumed to have been conducted by industry participants, and use of public funds for clinical trials should be defensible in the same manner. Plant-made vaccines (PMVs) are offered in this discussion as a model for evaluating the relevance of commercial feasibility before human clinical testing. PMVs have been proposed as a potential solution for global health, based on a vision of immunizing the world against many infectious diseases. Such a vision depends on translating current knowledge in plant science and immunology into a potent vaccine that can be readily manufactured and distributed to those in need. But new biologics such as PMVs may fail to be manufactured due to financial or logistical reasons—particularly for orphan diseases without sufficient revenue incentive for industry investment—regardless of the effectiveness which might be demonstrated in human clinical testing. Moreover, all potential instruments of global health depend on translational agents well beyond the lab in order to reach those in need. A model comprising five criteria for commercial feasibility is suggested for inclusion by regulators and ethics review boards as part of the review process prior to approval of human clinical testing. Use of this model may help to facilitate safe and appropriate translational research and bring more immediate benefits to those in need.     

城市社区老人心理健康服务现状调查——来自重庆市主城社区的调查数据

以重庆市主城社区老人为调查对象,从老人的基本情况、心理健康状况、心理健康服务需求、心理服务支持系统等方面的调查数据进行详细分析,得出了家庭、邻里同辈群体是老人心理健康的重要支持系统、需要建立完善的城市社区老人心理健康服务体系等结论。     

Assessing commercial feasibility: a practical and ethical prerequisite for human clinical testing

This article proposes that an assessment of commercial feasibility should be integrated as a prerequisite for human clinical testing to improve the quality and relevance of materials being investigated, as an ethical aspect for human subject protection, and as a means of improving accountability where clinical development is funded on promises of successful translational research. A commercial feasibility analysis is not currently required to justify human clinical testing, but is assumed to have been conducted by industry participants, and use of public funds for clinical trials should be defensible in the same manner. Plant-made vaccines (PMVs) are offered in this discussion as a model for evaluating the relevance of commercial feasibility before human clinical testing. PMVs have been proposed as a potential solution for global health, based on a vision of immunizing the world against many infectious diseases. Such a vision depends on translating current knowledge in plant science and immunology into a potent vaccine that can be readily manufactured and distributed to those in need. But new biologics such as PMVs may fail to be manufactured due to financial or logistical reasons--particularly for orphan diseases without sufficient revenue incentive for industry investment--regardless of the effectiveness which might be demonstrated in human clinical testing. Moreover, all potential instruments of global health depend on translational agents well beyond the lab in order to reach those in need. A model compromising five criteria for commercial feasibility is suggested for inclusion by regulators and ethics review boards as part of the review process prior to approval of human clinical testing. Use of this model may help to facilitate safe and appropriate translational research and bring more immediate benefits to those in need.     

Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.     

交友之道：青少年同伴关系的影响因素研究

同伴关系对青少年的健康成长至关重要。青少年同伴关系的形成以及家庭社会经济地位在这一过程中所起的作用,对于理解教育不平等和代际流动都有重要意义,但既有的研究发现并不一致。本文从社会分层视角出发,检验了家庭社会经济地位对青少年同伴接纳度的影响,并尝试探究其中介机制。研究发现,家庭社会经济地位和个人层面的积极特性(如较高的学业成绩、自我效能感、有体育爱好)分别对青少年的同伴接纳度产生独立的正向影响。其中,非认知能力和文体爱好并非家庭社会经济地位影响青少年同伴接纳度的中介机制,只有认知能力起到微弱的中介作用,即家庭社会经济地位的部分效应通过认知能力作用于同伴接纳度。     

A Mentoring Opportunity: A Joint Effort in Writing Letters of Recommendation

Integrity in writing letters of recommendation is important to academic research because it is an influential criterion used pervasively in peer review. While research in the integrity of recommendation letters has concentrated on contents of the letter, bias, and reliability, few have questioned the process of letter writing. Here, I argue that letter writing should be a joint opportunity between mentor/supervisor/advisor and trainee. It results in more compelling letters, may prevent errors and the use of biased language, and serves as an excellent mentoring opportunity promoting self-reflection.     

Tackling the problem of teenage pregnancy in looked‐after children: a peer mentoring approach

Teenage pregnancy is associated with adverse health and social outcomes, even after adjusting for prior disadvantage, and is recognized as a major public health issue. Rates of teenage pregnancy in the UK are among the highest in Europe. Interventions introduced in the past decade to address the problem, such as improved sex and relationships education in schools, have been accompanied by a fall in teenage pregnancy rates in the UK. However, this decline has not been mirrored among looked‐after children. In this paper, we discuss why this may be the case. We suggest that a system of peer mentoring, involving a young person, whose experience of life post‐care has been positive, may be an effective approach to tackling the problem of pregnancy in this group. Peer mentoring has the potential to assist young people in developing self‐esteem, confidence and in making choices regarding their education, personal development and relationships.     

The Precautionary Principle in Context: U.S. and E.U. Scientists' Prescriptions for Policy in the Face of Uncertainty*

Objective. Our objective is to explain how scientists interpret less‐than‐certain scientific findings to inform policymakers' choices on controversial science policy issues. We focus on two particularly difficult policy cases concerning global climate change and low‐dose radiation protection. Methods. Our method is to analyze data from a unique multination survey of scientists to analyze the ways their views about what is scientifically correct are translated into judgments about appropriate policy. The surveys asked scientists, randomly drawn from U.S. and E.U. subscribers to the journal Science, to indicate the “most likely” relationships between greenhouse gas emissions and average global temperatures and between radiation dose and incidence of cancer in humans. Follow‐up questions asked for their judgments about appropriate policy targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emission and safety standards for radiation exposure. The data permit analysis of the relationships between scientific certainty and policy judgments in these two cases. Results. Our results shed light on when and how scientists reach precautionary policy conclusions, demonstrating that scientists' application of precaution is dependent on context. In the case of radiation protection, greater certainty is associated with less precaution. But with respect climate change, we found the opposite relationship. Conclusions. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for the role of scientists, and scientific advice, in the policy process.     

遵从抑或濡染？班级同伴网络视角下的心理健康研究

本文超越了既有研究的个体网络视角,通过使用中国教育追踪调查（CEPS）的两期数据,考察班级同伴网络对学生心理健康的影响及其条件机制。本研究有如下发现：首先,在中国行政班级制度下,班级整体心理健康水平（社会遵从效应）和快乐同伴比例（快乐同伴效应）能够对学生的心理健康产生显著的正向影响,抑郁同伴比例与学生的心理健康呈显著负相关（抑郁同伴效应）;其次,学生更倾向于受到与自己心理健康观念和行为类似的同伴的影响,对于班级相对心理健康状况较差、中等、较好的学生而言,抑郁同伴效应、社会遵从效应和快乐同伴效应分别发挥显著的主导作用;最后,班级同伴网络对集体融入、亲子交流状况不同的学生的心理健康具有差异化的影响,随着集体融入和亲子交流的提高,抑郁同伴效应逐渐减弱,而社会遵从效应和快乐同伴效应逐渐增强。