Search

Background: Teamwork is essential for delivering high‐quality healthcare, particularly given the increasing complexity of care due to chronic diseases, comorbidities and limited resources. The necessary skills and attributes for effective teamwork are often taught and assessed through group work within healthcare education programs. While group work can assist the development of skills and attributes of students to be effective team members, it also presents challenges, such as ensuring equitable student contributions. The Self and Peer Assessment Resource Kit (SPARKPLUS) endeavours to increase transparency, address inequities and provide learning‐oriented feedback in group work. However, there is limited evidence on its utility within university health education. This study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the experiences of podiatry students who used SPARKPLUS for self‐evaluation and peer review during group work. Methods: Undergraduate podiatry students (n = 102) enrolled in a fourth‐year (final year) project‐based subject provided self‐ and peer‐assessment ratings for two group assessment tasks using SPARKPLUS. Eleven students (10.8%) participated in semi‐structured focus groups, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Four overarching themes and 11 subthemes were identified: (i) Performance (1a. Equity; 1b. Accountability), (ii) Peer inter‐relationships (2a. Social dynamics; 2b. Fear of consequences), (iii) Feedback and reflection (3a. Self‐reflection; 3b. Receiving and responding to feedback; 3c. Supervisor action; 3d. Avoiding confrontation) and (iv) Utility (4a. Enablers; 4b. Barriers; 4c. Integration throughout course). Conclusions: Overall, SPARKPLUS encouraged equity, accountability and self‐reflection among group members. There was perceived risk of negative group dynamics and relationships when poor feedback was given. It was equivocal if team member contributions increased. Self‐ and peer‐assessment with SPARKPLUS is a useful approach towards addressing inequities in group work within health education and may offer insight into the development and assessment of teamwork capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Video-recordings review of patient encounters is reported to improve the clinical performance of medical students. However, evidence on specific remediation strategies or outcomes are lacking. We aimed to implement videorecording-based remediation of standardized patient encounters among medical students, combined with preceptor one-on-one feedback or peer group discussion, and evaluate the effectiveness of the two remediation methods using objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Methods: Following standardized patient encounters, 107 final-year medical students were divided into two groups based on different remediation methods of video review: (1) precepted video review with preceptor feedback (N = 55) and (2) private video review and subsequent peer group discussion under supervision (N = 52). All students underwent twelve-stations of OSCE both before and after the video review. Students' pre- and post-remediation OSCE scores, self-efficacy level in patient encounters, and level of educational satisfaction with each method were assessed and compared between different video-based remediation methods to evaluate their respective effects. Results: After remediation, the total and subcomponent OSCE scores, such as history taking, physical examination, and patient – physician interaction (PPI), among all students increased significantly. Post-remediation OSCE scores showed no significant difference between two remediation methods (preceptor module, 79.6 ± 4.3 vs. peer module, 79.4 ± 3.8 in the total OSCE score). Students' self-efficacy levels increased after remediation in both modules (both p-value <0.001), with no difference between the two modules. However, students' satisfaction level was higher in the preceptor module than in the peer module (80.1 ± 17.7 vs. 59.2 ± 25.1, p-value <0.001). Among students with poor baseline OSCE performance, a prominent increase in PPI scores was observed in the preceptor-based module. Conclusion: Video-based remediation of patient encounters, either through preceptor review with one-on-one feedback or through private review with peer discussion, was equally effective in improving the OSCE scores and self-efficacy levels of medical students. Underperforming students can benefit from precepted video reviews for building PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on how public schools interpret, translate, and contextualize programs delivered by private foundations in a "philanthropy enactment" process. To this end, it presents an empirical study focused on the interpretations of school actors from Portuguese public schools regarding a digital education program promoted by a tech-communication private foundation. Through document analysis and interviews, the data reveal a growing normalization of private actors' involvement in these institutions. School actors are shown to increasingly welcome ready-to-use philanthropic programs, prioritizing support that helps them address their problems and achieve their objectives, irrespective of the provider's identity. Despite this pragmatic approach, which limits critical reflection on the effects of private foundations within their institutions, the interviews reveal that philanthropy enactment is not merely passive. School actors exhibit a range of perspectives on philanthropic interventions, shaped by the specific challenges they encounter and the solutions they pursue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents findings from a critical review of 163 peer-reviewed articles on the growth of private higher education (HE) cross-nationally. Our review finds that the vast majority of studies on the development of private HE are country-specific case studies, with few comparative or cross-national studies. Moreover, most studies endorse a set of simple causal storylines about the growth of private HE that positions it as a straightforward "solution" to "problems," with private HE most frequently framed as either demand-absorbing or quality-enhancing. To advance more nuanced explanations, our review identified 18 factors—four supranational and 14 national—that influence the growth of private HE. We develop a conceptual model that highlights the diverse actors and processes involved. In concluding, we call for more cross-national and comparative studies on private HE that can better theorize the relative impact of specific factors on the sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "Chemistry Research Training II" course is a mandatory course for senior students in the Department of Chemistry at Tianjin University. This course introduces an innovative "self-directed learning" model where students form teams based on their interests and strengths, select their research topics, and design their own research plans. Under the guidance of instructors, students conduct exploratory research and their performance is evaluated through group presentations and peer reviews. The course is highly praised by students for its rich content and novel teaching methods. This course explores new teaching models, enhances students' research and practical skills, and makes a valuable contribution to the cultivation of top-tier innovative talents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the challenges and benefits of peer review in research, particularly in the field of engineering education. It highlights the importance of improving the peer review process to address biases, delays, and errors in publications. The article presents a mentored group peer review process within an engineering research group as a way to enhance the quality of reviews, develop reviewers' skills, and foster a sense of community and collaboration. The process involves structured group interactions, feedback incorporation, and reflective discussions to support the growth of both novice and experienced reviewers. The article concludes with recommendations for research groups interested in implementing group peer review practices to enhance scholarly development among graduate students and postdocs. [Extracted from the article]

Peer review in journals is in crisis, and its current situation and sustainability are increasingly concerning for academics and scientific communities. We identify this crisis as part of an evolutionary step in the continuous development of science, arguing that peer review maintains a central role. We analyse the emergence and historical development of peer review, identifying its role as crucial to the legitimisation of global science, particularly in guaranteeing quality control in the scientific process of massification—despite its flaws. We then focus on the crisis as part of the recent second wave of massification stemming from 'publish or perish' dynamics, which overburden those involved in peer review management and activities. Based on this crisis and given that the alternative models to peer review rely on the same core ideals, we argue that the current scenario represents a golden opportunity for the peer‐review process to adapt by correcting some of its known biases, becoming more inclusive and relevant, and gaining recognition for its crucial role in career progression and in the training of the researchers of tomorrow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The processes of giving and receiving feedback are woven into the work and scholarly publication pursuits of academic librarians. The competencies required to cultivate a meaningful feedback exchange have been explored in other disciplines under the term "feedback literacy," and have recently been tied to the peer review process included in the scholarly publication cycle. This article presents the findings from an international survey to Library Science editors and the authors of LIS journal articles, seeking to evaluate author and editor experiences of peer review in LIS journals and to ascertain the amount of instruction or training the respondents received in regard to scholarly writing and the peer review process. The study found that there is little to no standard instruction within the LIS discipline on the peer review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The European consensus was designed with the objective of combining science and expertise to produce recommendations that would educate and provide guidance in the treatment of the painful degenerative varus knee. Part I focused on indications and planning. Methods: Ninety‐four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 European countries were involved in the consensus, which focused on the most common indications for osteotomy around the knee. The consensus was performed according to an established ESSKA methodology. The questions and recommendations made were initially designed by the consensus steering group. And 'best possible' answers were provided based upon the scientific evidence available and the experience of the experts. The statements produced were further evaluated by ratings and peer review groups before a final consensus was reached. Results: There is no reliable evidence to exclude patients based on age, gender or body weight. An individualised approach is advised; however, cessation of smoking is recommended. The same applies to lesser degrees of patellofemoral and lateral compartment arthritis, which may be accepted in certain situations. Good‐quality limb alignment and knee radiographs are a mandatory requirement for planning of osteotomies, and Paley's angles and normal ranges are recommended when undertaking deformity analysis. Emphasis is placed upon the correct level at which correction of varus malalignment is performed, which may involve double‐level osteotomy. This includes recognition of the importance of individual bone morphology and the maintenance of a physiologically appropriate joint line orientation. Conclusion: The indications of knee osteotomies for painful degenerative varus knees are broad. Part I of the consensus highlights the versatility of the procedure to address multiple scenarios with bespoke planning for each case. Deformity analysis is mandatory for defining the bone morphology, the site of the deformity and planning the correct procedure. Level of Evidence: Level II, consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) consensus is to provide recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve indications, decision‐making and administration‐related aspects when using blood‐derived orthobiologics (for simplicity indicated as PRP—platelet‐rich plasma—with PRP being the most common product) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Leading European expert clinicians and scientists were divided into a steering group, a rating group and a peer review group. The steering group prepared 28 question—statement sets divided into three sections: PRP rationale and indications, PRP preparation and characterisation and PRP protocol. The quality of the statements received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high‐level scientific support) to B (scientific presumption), C (low‐level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). The question–statement sets were then evaluated by the rating group, and the statements scored from 1 to 9 based on their degree of agreement with the statements produced by the steering group. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the document was submitted to the peer review group who evaluated the geographic adaptability and approved the document. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to produce the official document. Results: The literature review on the use of blood‐derived products for knee OA revealed that 9 of 28 questions/statements had the support of high‐level scientific literature, while the other 19 were supported by a medium‐low scientific quality. Three of the 28 recommendations were grade A recommendations: (1) There is enough preclinical and clinical evidence to support the use of PRP in knee OA. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8). (2) Clinical evidence has shown the effectiveness of PRP in patients for mild to moderate degrees of knee OA (KL ≤ 3). This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8.1). (3) PRP injections have been shown to provide a longer effect in comparison to the short‐term effect of CS injections. They also seem to provide a safer use profile with less potential related complications. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a very strong agreement (mean: 8.7). Six statements were grade B recommendations, 7 were grade C and 12 were grade D. The mean rating score was 8.2 ± 0.3. Conclusions: The consensus group reached a high level of agreement on all the questions/statements despite the lack of clear evidence for some questions. According to the results from this consensus group, given the large body of existing literature and expert opinions, PRP was regarded as a valid treatment option for knee OA and as a possible first‐line injectable treatment option for nonoperative management of knee OA, mainly for KL grades 1–3. Level of Evidence: Level II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Victimization and cybervictimization can negatively affect the subjective experience of well‐being. This effect can be mediated by school factors, even if a deep understanding of these factors still needs to be determined. The present study examined how peer network, teacher support, and school connectedness mediated the relationship between victimization, cybervictimization, and well‐being. We developed two mediation models, considering victimization (Model 1) and cybervictimization (Model 2) as predictors, well‐being as the outcome, peer network, teacher support, and school connectedness as parallel mediators, and gender as a covariate variable. Methods: The sample comprised 563 Italian students (Mage = 11.5; 45% females). Students filled out a purpose‐built questionnaire investigating victimization and cybervictimization, peer network, teacher support, school connectedness, and well‐being. Two multiple mediation models were run using Process. Results: The two models showed similar patterns [Model 1: F(8, 169) = 34.35, p ≤.001, R2 =.34; Model 2: F(8, 169) = 40.13, p ≤.001, R2 =.34]. Indeed, victimization (Model 1) and cybervictimization (Model 2) had negative significant effects on peer network, teacher support, and school connectedness. However, their direct effects on well‐being were not significant, as peer network and school connectedness emerged as complete mediators between victimization (Model 1) and cybervictimization (Model 2) and well‐being. Males displayed higher levels of well‐being compared to females. Conclusions: Peer network and school connectedness play a crucial role in mediating the impact of victimization and cybervictimization on well‐being. Educators and policymakers should prioritize fostering supportive peer network and strengthening school connectedness to create an environment that mitigates the negative effects of victimization and cybervictimization, enhancing overall student well‐being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing and receiving feedback are crucial elements of any learning exchange and are an intrinsic part of cultivating disciplinary dialogic culture. While there is considerable scholarly conversation on the topic of cultivating constructive feedback in student work, there is less literature dedicated to addressing what successful feedback literacy and processes look like in relation to scholarly research writing by professionals. This literature review examines the development of feedback literacy concepts across disciplines to determine if and how these concepts manifest within academic librarianship literature. The goal of this paper is to gain insights to improve future feedback exchange within the profession. Results indicate that the concept of feedback literacy is still largely under-explored in library and information science circles. Suggestions are made for improvements to address this gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a revision of the online November 2021 Brighton thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) case definition and a new Brighton Collaboration case definition for vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT). These case definitions are intended for use in clinical trials and post-licensure pharmacovigilance activities to facilitate safety data comparability across multiple settings. They are not intended to guide clinical management. The case definitions were developed by a group of subject matter and Brighton Collaboration process experts as part of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)-funded Safety Platform for Evaluation of vACcines (SPEAC). The case definitions, each with defined levels of diagnostic certainty, are based on relevant published evidence and expert consensus and are accompanied by specific guidelines for TTS and VITT data collection and analysis. The document underwent peer review by a reference group of vaccine safety stakeholders and haematology experts to ensure case definition useability, applicability and scientific integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Higher Education is the property of Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

It cannot be nullified that the peer review process is characterized by reviewers who tend to destructively assume the role of researchers. In so doing, this behavior undermines the intellectual ability of researchers, especially novice researchers, who dedicate their time attempting to contribute to scholarly epistemology. Effectively, this concerning behavior of assuming the role of a researcher denotes that the reviewers downplay the reality that researchers certainly know something; no matter how little or greater it is. Thus, it is not fair-minded for reviewers to regard themselves as if they are gods of knowledge. With this in mind, this particular paper aims to explore and open a dialogue concerning the challenge of reviewers who destructively assume the role of an author or researcher, thereupon sabotaging the peer review process by imposing their personal scholarly interests. This is against the reality that such conduct deters potential epistemologies that could make a constructive social impact within and outside the arena of scholarship. In parallel, such behavior from the reviewers may lead to the rejection of scholarly contributions that can generate change and transformation in the academic community. By the same token, the rejection of papers, in large part, by the recommendations of destructive reviewers who assume researchers’ roles may demoralize novice researchers who have a strong determination to construct and assemble original, and innovative insights into the body of knowledge. In view of this fact, reviewers ought to appreciate the importance of recognizing the voices and narratives of the authors without imposing their personal interests that could sabotage the quality and publication of valuable and well-deserving scholarly papers. On account of this, I conclude this scholarly dialogue by presenting some of the recommendations that may be considered to mitigate the problematized phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of mediation as a constructive and cost-effective alternative for resolving disputes in dentistry and beyond. Topics include its use in the American Dental Association (ADA)'s peer review process for fee disputes, its voluntary and confidential nature in standalone cases, and its broader application in professional and personal conflicts, such as office partnerships and landlord-tenant disagreements.

Purpose: The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in ACL revision. Methods: The European expert surgeons and scientists were divided into four groups to participate in this consensus. A "literature group" (four surgeons); "steering group" (14 surgeons and scientists); "rating group" (19 surgeons) and finally "peer review group" (51 representatives of the ESSKA-affiliated national societies from 27 countries). The steering group prepared eighteen question–answer sets. The quality of the answers received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientific support), to B (scientific presumption), C (low level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). These question–answer sets were then evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 to 9. The comments of the rating group were incorporated by the steering group and the consensus was submitted to the rating group a second time. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the question–answer sets were submitted to the peer review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to ratify the document. Results: The literature review for the diagnosis and preoperative planning of ACL revision revealed a rather low scientific quality. None of the 18 questions was graded A and six received a grade B. The mean rating of all the questions by the rating group was 8.4 ± 0.3. The questions and recommendations are listed below. Conclusion: ACL revision surgery is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardisation. Therefore, this international consensus project is of great importance. Level of Evidence: II. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this practice statement is to help members and their multidisciplinary teams recognize infusion reactions and hypersensitivity reactions in the clinical setting. It will provide recommendations to help guide response to reactions and desensitization when appropriate, to promote safe use of chemotherapeutic agents among all providers in the delivery process. A multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Education Committee collaborated to review peer reviewed literature and guidelines to develop a practice statement on the management of chemotherapy hypersensitivity reactions and desensitization regimens. There is always potential for a patient to have a reaction to any medication, with both infusion reactions and hypersensitivity reactions potentially occurring in the treatment of gynecologic cancers. Premedication to prevent reactions should be given at least prior to infusion for regimens that include the most common agents associated with reactions. At the time when reaction is occurring it might be difficult to distinguish between an infusion reaction versus true hypersensitivity given the similarities in signs and symptoms, therefore it is important that orders to manage reactions be included in every chemotherapy order set so the infusion nurse can provide immediate interventions while waiting for the provider to arrive to assess the patient. Desensitization is a potential option to allow the patient to continue to receive the offending agent. While a variety of desensitization regimens have been presented in the literature, the goal is to minimize steps and variability to decrease opportunity for errors during chemotherapy preparation or administration. Incorporating a review of the literature and clinical experience from the SGO Education Committee, this paper provides an overview of current approaches for prevention and management of reactions to commonly used chemotherapy agents for gynecologic cancers. • Hypersensitivity and infusion reactions to antineoplastic therapies challenge the treatment of cancer patients. • Reactions require a multi-disciplinary team to decide on a protocol best suited to their patients within their institution. • Every effort should be made to streamline the process and protocols to reduce error during mixing and administration. • An overview is provided of approaches for prevention and management of reactions to agents used for gynecologic cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article delves into periodical's peer review process, highlighting the collaborative efforts among peer reviewers, authors, editorial board, and ACRL staff to enhance submissions. It reveals insights into the review timeline, criteria, and suggestions for constructive feedback. Topics include peer review process, reviewer guidelines, submission criteria.

The article explores the impact of data visualizations on laboratorians' acceptance of method comparison studies. Through data simulation and volunteer participation, the study found that the choice of visualization, such as Bland-Altman plots or scatter plots, influenced the acceptance rate of new assays. While no significant relationship was found between years of experience and acceptance rate, there was an association between role and acceptance rates. The study suggests using Bland-Altman plots for visualizing method comparison results to make informed decisions in laboratory settings. [Extracted from the article]

This paper explores the potential for a system to be a co-author on an academic paper based on the criteria proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We used a third generation generative pretrained transformer (GPT-3) to write a review paper on the topic of its choice: The Effects of Sleep Deprivation on Cognitive Function. The system was asked to fulfill the four main criteria for co-authorship as recommended by ICMJE, which includes contributions to the conception or design of the work; drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Our results showed that the system was able to fulfill the criteria, with significant difficulties with accurate and reliable referencing. We also explored the ethical implications of using AI systems for research and found that it is important to take a cautious approach when considering its use for scientific authorship. This case study provides a methodology for further investigations into the possibilities and limitations of automated writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anemia is one of the major nutritional problems in the world, especially among adolescents. The aim of this systematic research is to review the effectiveness of peer groups in preventing anemia in adolescents. Articles were searched from four electronic databases such as Science-direct, PubMed, Sage, and Springer. An online search for articles was carried out in August 2022 and provided that articles were published from 2018 to 2022. Several keywords were used for literature searching, including "peer group to prevent anemia" and "anemia prevention in adolescent". Data selection using PICOS and PRISMA flowchart get 9 articles. Data were narratively described. The result of this review showed that peer group intervention changed the behavior to prevent anemia in adolescents. Peer group intervention proved knowledge, attitude, skill, intention, and behavior to prevent anemia in adolescents. The conclusion of this literature review is that peer group was an effective strategy for preventing anemia in adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of peer reviewers in the peer review process is crucial for determining the quality and suitability of submitted manuscripts for publication. Previous studies on the Reviewer Assignment Problem (RAP) have primarily focused on assigning reviewers independently, considering the match between each reviewer and the manuscript while neglecting subject diversity. In this paper, we propose a group-based recommendation approach for selecting an appropriate peer review expert group. To achieve this, we construct a weighted heterogeneous network based on the reviewer's publications to capture the reviewer's subject interest and expertise. We then introduce a group-based reviewer recommendation model that formulates RAP as a Binary Integer Programming (BIP) problem. In the general module in the model, we develop a novel heuristic algorithm to implement BIP, identifying the optimal combination of reviewers as the recommended peer review expert group. Furthermore, to address situations where recommended reviewers decline review invitations, we propose an improved heuristic algorithm that provides supplementary reviewers within the group-based recommendation model. Finally, through a series of experiments, we demonstrate that our proposed approach outperformed previous well-known methods for RAP. In summary, our approach facilitates an efficient assembly of a reviewer group by editors to address issues in RAP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SI-PASS is a structured academic support program employing successful later-year students to facilitate peer-learning sessions attached to high-risk courses, specifically here statistics for psychology at ULiège. The research translates as: How much does this method improve academic performance and impact socio-affective perceptions in first-year students? This study compares academic performance and socio-affective variables of first-year students in the experimental condition and the control condition. Participants were 245 freshmen for the experimental trial, and 985 for the quasi-experimental trial. Participants were assigned to either participate to the SI-PASS scheme or not during the first semester following a randomized controlled trial with stratified random assignment method. Then, the whole cohort enlisted for the course was analyzed to validate supplementary hypotheses. The first step of the study reveals no difference between both groups on academic performance, unless the level of attendance is considered; nor does it identify any significant impact on socio-affective variables. The second step consisted in the comparison of the experimental group and the group of students who chose not to volunteer for SI-PASS and resulted in significant improvement in academic performance in favor of SI-PASS. This delivered significant results in favor of the program but only when attendance is considered, thus offering empirical evidence that a genuine experimental design is likely to mitigate the effects found in a tradition of quasi-experimental designs. These results are valuable for the SI-PASS community, where randomized trials are still scarce, and for higher education institutions seeking evidence-based assistance. • Randomized controlled trial with stratified random assignment. • Fully experimental research design. • Double-blind approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The higher education research field has grown five-fold in the past twenty years, and higher education journals have become larger and larger. What are the consequences for peer review? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study set out to examine which peer review, face-to-face given orally or online given in writing, is more effective in improving the overall argumentative writing achievement of English as a foreign language (EFL) university learners. The study utilized an experimental design and reported on one experiment including online peer review (OLPR) which was the experimental group (n = 74) and a face-to-face peer review (FTFPR) which served as the control group (n = 48). Both groups (n = 122) were trained in the use of their respective peer review, OLPR or FTFPR. Both groups wrote two argumentative synthesis essays, immediate and delayed, in two drafts. The second draft of each essay was written after receiving the respective peer review, OLPR or FTFPR. Two Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) tests and a qualitative analysis of peer reviews were conducted to address the study question. Quantitative findings showed that participants in the OLPR group significantly outperformed their FTFPR counterparts in improving the argumentative synthesis writing of EFL university learners. The qualitative analysis of the peer review forms, and the revised essays revealed that the OLPR group gave more systematic feedback than that of FTFPR, OLPR focused on content, organization and language while commenting on the writing strengths and weaknesses. Thus, instructors are advised to use OLPR in argumentative writing classes. The study also showed the significance of shifting the control of feedback from the teacher to students. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I discuss from an economic perspective two of the most recent suggestions to reform the peer review system: (a) payment to referees; (b) ex post peer review. I show that strong economic arguments militate against these ideas. With respect to payment to referees I use results from the economic analysis of prosocial behavior and the private production of public goods, which show that the supply of monetary incentives has the paradoxical effect of reducing the willingness of agents to collaborate, insofar as they substitute intrincic motivation with extrinsic motivation. With respect to ex post peer review, I show that it fails to offer sufficient incentives to researchers, since it is anonymous, depersonalized, and weak in its marginal impact on publishing decisions. I take this argument to criticize the lack of theorizing, in the side of radical proponents of Open access, about the conditions for transition from the subscription model to the Open model. It is this lack of critical attention to economic arguments that has led to the unintended but dramatic outcome of a net increase in the cost of scientific publishing, as documented in very recent papers. Finally, I advance a proposal for admitting payments to referees, but not as individuals but as groups of researchers. I offer this idea to open discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The letter by Saito et al responds to an article by Sinha and colleagues about the ChaMP-CMD trial, which focused on identifying patients with angina and nonobstructive coronary arteries (ANOCA) who would benefit from anti-ischemic therapy. The study found that invasively assessing coronary flow reserve (CFR) was useful in determining which patients would benefit from therapy with amlodipine and ranolazine. The authors suggest that measuring CFR, rather than hyperemic microvascular resistance (hMR), should be used to guide the management of patients with ANOCA. They also call for additional data on hMR from the ChaMP-CMD trial to further inform guidelines for ANOCA. [Extracted from the article]

Existing research has found that when a journal transitions from single-blind review to double-blind review, female authorship increases. This article reports the findings of a first-of-its-kind study designed to measure if transitioning to triple-blind review would further reduce gender bias in academic publishing. The findings as to whether triple-blind review is an effective gender bias mitigation strategy helps better inform journals as to the costs and benefits of its implementation. Furthermore, the finding provides a better understanding to the academic community at large regarding issues of gender bias and scholarship. Finally, these findings invite further investigation in future research for peer review best practices and the problem of female underrepresentation in academic publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Young adults have experienced significant changes and cutbacks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated how young adults from Germany, Austria and Switzerland experienced their educational and vocational situation in the past and how they see their current situation and their future. The data was collected through expert and peer interviews, i.e., that some of our 17- to 20-years old interviewees were trained after the expert interview to conduct interviews with their peers themselves. The analysis shows challenges such as concerns over the socially perceived worthlessness of degrees during COVID-19, the prospective fear of difficulty in making contacts when starting in a new place, or the loss of motivation due to perceived omnipresence of school in everyday life. Changes such as a lack of communal celebration of graduation due to the elimination of school-based graduation activities, or developing independence after a distance learning experience due to required personal responsibility, could be seen. They used a variety of coping strategies, for example confrontive coping, distancing, seeking social support or escape-avoidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The core purpose of Youth-Initiated Mentoring (YIM) is to adopt a more collaborative approach to mentoring by inviting youth to nominate and select their own mentors. This article performs a scoping review of research on YIM to identify common methodologies and emerging evidence from available studies. Six online research databases were used to identify peer-reviewed academic articles published in English. No date restrictions were applied. In total, nine peer-reviewed articles were identified and reviewed. The main findings from these studies indicate that collaborating with youth during the mentor nomination process offers several benefits to youth in mentoring relationships. Based on the knowledge gained from this scoping review, a secondary purpose of this article is to encourage researchers to adopt a more participatory approach to their future investigations of YIM. Despite YIM's recent exploration into more collaborative approaches to practice, the model has yet to fully embrace more collaborative approaches to research. To address this limitation, this article begins a productive dialogue between YIM and Community-Based Participatory Research. Specifically, this article reviews four of the principles within Community-Based Participatory Research and surfaces helpful strategies that researchers can use to begin celebrating the local knowledge and expertise of youth and their communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physician peer review is a universal practice in U.S. hospitals. While there are many commonalities in peer review procedures, many of them established by law, there is also much institutional variation, which should be well understood by practicing neurosurgeons. A 13-question pilot survey was conducted of a sample of 5 hospital systems with whom members of the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Medico-Legal Committee are affiliated. Survey questions were constructed to qualitatively assess 3 features of hospital peer review: 1) committee composition and process, 2) committee outcomes, and 3) legal protections and ramifications. The most common paradigm for a physician peer review committee was an interdisciplinary group with representatives from most major medical and surgical subspecialties. Referrals for peer review inquiry could be made by any hospital employee and were largely anonymous. Most institutions included a precommittee screening process conducted by the physician peer review committee leadership. The most common outcomes of an inquiry were resolution with no further action or ongoing focused professional practice evaluation. Hospital privileges were only rarely reported to be revoked or terminated. Members of the physician peer review committee were consistently protected from retaliatory litigation related to peer review participation. Most hospitals had a multilayered decision process and availability of appeal to minimize potential for punitive investigations. According to a recent study, only 62% of hospitals consider their peer review process to be highly or significantly standardized. This pilot survey provides commentary of potential areas of commonality and variation among hospital peer review practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares the effectiveness of one-semester-long instruction of teacher-student collaborative assessment (TSCA) and trained peer review assessment (TPRA). Dependent variables include occurrence of structural elements of the simplified Toulmin model, and improvement of argumentation substance which refers to the quality of reasoning reflected in Toulmin structural elements. Eighty-one sophomore English majors from TSCA group (n=41) and TPRA group (n= 40) were asked to construct two argumentative essays at both the beginning and the end of the semester. The results reveal that the TSCA group produced significantly more counterargument claims and rebuttal data. Additionally, the TSCA group significantly outperformed TPRA group in constructing stronger counterargument claim, rebuttal claim and rebuttal data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an article published in this journal entitled "Predatory publications in the era of internet and technology: Open access publications are at risk", Akhilesh Kumar, Ravi Gupta, Krishna Kant Tripathi & Rajani Ranjan Singh argue that the definition of predatory publications defame the open access journals putting the sustainability of these type of publications at risk which mushroomed in the age of internet and electronic freedom in disseminating academic and non-academic information. This note comments on their paper by arguing that (a) predatory practices are ubiquitous in the academic world, not only in publications; (b) charging a fee does not make an academic practice predatory; and (c) in the long-term no publication or an academic practice can survive if it does not offer some sort of "satisfaction" to users (readers and authors). The argument of peer review or not is irrelevant because a publication, once it becomes available, is constantly reviewed by its readers who are the ultimate judges of its quality. At the end of the day, what counts are the number of readers and the number of citations of a published work. Thanks to the internet these are now easily measurable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Predatory publications in the era of internet and technology: Open access publications are at risk" was published in the Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications and Prof. Papanikos has given his insightful inputs on it in the article entitled "Predatory Publications in the Era of Internet and Technology: A Comment". As a response to his article, the authors identified that the "Predatory Practices" go beyond the "Predatory publications" and are prevalent in many formats other than scientific publications. Although naming such practices as "Academic pornography" is too harsh, no other word could be used for such biased conspiracy in the name of so called quality and predatory publications. No one is authorized to judge that this particular publication model is good and others are bad. We wanted to communicate that predatory vs. non-predatory debate is pulling back the novel idea of open access. We are at the same track with Prof. Papanikos, the ways are different. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study extends research on peer evaluations by examining the impact of Frame-of-Reference rater training on teammembers' understanding of a specificmodel of teamwork, as well as on the quality of peer evaluations in a team-performance context. We examine whether participants who have completed Frame-of-Reference training can better understand and apply a model of teammember performance and provide higher quality peer ratings in an interactive team exercise than thosewho do not receive training. In studies at two universities, we found that trained participants are better able to classify team-member behaviors into the appropriate categories of a sciencebased model of teamwork and more accurately identify the performance level of those behaviors. Using round-robin data from students working on a highly interdependent task, we also utilized the social relations model (SRM) to test whether trained participants provide higher quality peer ratings. The SRM analysis estimates the variance in team members' ratings of teammates' performance attributable to various effects (rater, group, error, etc.). We found that trained groups had nearly twice the proportion of rating variance attributable to target effects (the people being rated) as untrained groups. We highlight implications of these results for practice and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]