Quality control of epidemiological lectures online: Scientific evaluation of peer review

Croatian Medical Journal

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 249-255

  Linkov, Faina ^a,b   Lovalekar, Mita ^a   LaPorte, Ronald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; OBSERVER VARIATION; PEER REVIEW; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 34247513931     PISSN: 03539504     EISSN: 13328166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Steinbrook R. Egg donation and human embryonic stem-cell research. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:324-6.
2. Dean C. Where science and public policy intersect, researchers offer a short lesson on basics. The New York Times. January 21, 2006. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/science/31cong.html?ex=1296363600&en= 73143d5abbac317b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. Accessed: March 12, 2007.
3. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263:1321-2.
4. Mulligan A. Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncol. 2005;41:135-41.
5. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784-6.
6. Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med. 1974;56:686-92.
7. Thorn A. Peer review: a closed system in need of reform [In Swedish]. Lakartidningen. 2002;99:3106-8.
8. Olson CM. Peer review of the biomedical literature. Am J Emerg Med. 1990;8:356-8.
9. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Caelleigh AS. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8:75-96.
10. Good CD, Parente ST, Rennie D, Fletcher SW. A worldwide assessment of medical journal editors' practices and needs - results of a survey by the World Association of Medical Editors. S Afr Med J. 1999;89:397-401.
11. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F. Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA. 2002;287:2786-90.
12. LaPorte RE, Linkov F, Villasenor T, Sauer F, Gamboa C, Lovalekar M, et al. Papyrus to PowerPoint (P 2 P): metamorphosis of scientific communication. BMJ. 2002;325:1478-81.
13. Laporte RE, Omenn GS, Serageldin I, Cerf VG, Linkov F. A scientific supercourse. Science. 2006;312:526.
14. Linkov F, LaPorte R, Lovalekar M, Dodani S. Web quality control for lectures: Supercourse and Amazon.com. Croat Med J. 2005;46:875-8.
15. Hodgson C. How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1189-95.
16. Montgomery AA, Graham A, Evans PH, Fahey T. Interrater agreement in the scoring of abstracts submitted to a primary care research conference. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2:8.
17. Marusic A, Mestrovic T, Petrovecki M, Marusic M. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996. Croat Med J. 1998;39:3-9.
18. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science. 1981;214:881-6.
19. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328:673.
20. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Waeckerle JF. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance. Ann Emerg Med. 1998;32:318-22.
21. Callaham ML, Knopp RK, Gallagher EJ. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2781-3.
22. Edwards Deming W. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.