text:
Peer review - Related Links
Peer review
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type of activity and by the field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review.
In parallel with these 'common experience' definitions based on the study of peer review as a pre-constructed process, there are a few scientific understandings of peer review that do not look at peer review as pre-constructed. Hirschauer proposed that journal peer review can be understood as reciprocal accountability of judgements among peers.[1] Gaudet proposed that journal peer review could be understood as a social form of boundary judgement - determining what can be considered as scientific (or not) set against an overarching knowledge system, and following predecessor forms of inquisition and censorship.[2][3]
- 1 History
- 2 Professional peer review
- 3 Scholarly peer review
- 4 Criticism of peer review
- 5 Improvement efforts: Open peer review
- 6 Peer review of government policy
- 7 Medical peer review
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
The first recorded editorial pre-publication peer-review process was at the Royal Society of London in 1665 by the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg.[4][5][6] In the 20th century, peer review became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review.[7] See a competing understanding of the history of peer review using a scientific approach in Gaudet,[8] that builds on historical research by Gould,[9] Biagioli,[10] Spier,[11] and Rip.[12] Using a scientific approach means carefully tending to what is under investigation, here peer review, and not only looking at superficial or self-evident commonalities among inquisition, censorship, and journal peer review.
The first peer-reviewed publication might have been the Medical Essays and Observations published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1731. The present-day peer-review system evolved from this 18th-century process,[13] and did not become commonplace until the mid-20th-century.[14]
A prototype professional peer-review process is recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). His work states that a visiting physician must make duplicate notes of a patient's condition on every visit. When the patient was cured or had died, the notes of the physician were examined by a local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care.[15]
Peer review has long been a touchstone of the scientific method, but until the end of the 19th century it had been performed by editors in chief or editorial committees. While some medical journals then started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that these reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, often being thanked by authors and editors.[16] In earlier periods, editors of scientific journals often made publication decisions without seeking outside input. For example, Albert Einstein's revolutionary Annus Mirabilis papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the journal's editor-in-chief, Max Planck, and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, both future Nobel prize winners and together experts on the topics of these papers. An external panel of reviewers was not sought, contrary to what is now done for many scientific journals. Established authors and editors were then given more latitude in their journalistic discretion. On another occasion, Einstein was severely critical of the external review process, saying that he had not authorized the editor in chief to show his manuscript "to specialists before it is printed", and informing him that he would "publish the paper elsewhere".[17] An editorial in Nature published in 2003 stated that "in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.".[18]
The first Peer Review Congress met in 1989. Over time, the fraction of papers devoted to peer review has steadily declined, suggesting that as a field of sociological study, it has been replaced by more systematic studies of bias and errors.[19]
Professional peer review
Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. In academia, peer review is common in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.
Professional peer review activity is widespread in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review.[20] Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc.[21] Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting,[22][23] law,[24][25] engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management.[26]
Peer review is used in education to achieve certain learning objectives, particularly as a tool to reach higher order processes in the affective and cognitive domains as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. This may take a variety of forms, including closely mimicking the scholarly peer review processes used in science and medicine.[27][28]
Scholarly peer review
|It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article titled Scholarly peer review. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2014.
Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book. Peer review in its current form is relatively recent; the journal Nature instituted formal peer review only in 1967.[29] The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research. It has been criticized[by whom?] as ineffective, slow, and is often misunderstood (also see anonymous peer review and open peer review).[by whom?] Critiques of the current peer review process from concerned scholars[by whom?] has stemmed from recent controversial studies published by two researchers from the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and NASA.[30] These two published articles are now case studies of peer review failure. In the social sciences, there have recently been experiments with wiki-style, signed, peer reviews, for example in an issue of the Shakespeare Quarterly.[31]
Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by academic scholars and professionals.[citation needed]
It is difficult for authors and researchers, whether individually or in a team, to spot every mistake or flaw in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily a reflection on those concerned, but because with a new and perhaps eclectic subject, an opportunity for improvement may be more obvious to someone with special expertise or who simply looks at it with a fresh eye. Therefore, showing work to others increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified and improved. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.[26][27]
At the end of the day, the decision whether or not to publish a scholarly article, or what should be modified before publication, lies with the editor of the journal to which the manuscript has been submitted. Similarly, the decision whether or not to fund a proposed project rests with an official of the funding agency. These individuals usually refer to the opinion of one or more reviewers in making their decision. This is primarily for three reasons:
- Workload. A small group of editors/assessors cannot devote sufficient time to each of the many articles submitted to many journals.
- Diversity of opinion. Were the editor/assessor to judge all submitted material themselves, approved material would solely reflect their opinion.
- Limited expertise. An editor/assessor cannot be expected to be sufficiently expert in all areas covered by a single journal or funding agency to adequately judge all submitted material.
Thus it is normal for manuscripts and grant proposals to be sent to one or more external reviewers for comment.
Reviewers are typically anonymous and independent, to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions. However, the reviewer's identity may sometimes have to be disclosed under some limited circumstances, such as the examination of a formal complaint against the referee, or a court order. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing).
Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review helps keeping invalid or unsubstantiated claims out of the body of published research and knowledge. Scholars will read published articles outside their limited area of detailed expertise, and then rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to have provided reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. Significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the invalid research.
In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Depending on the field of study and on the specific journal, there are usually one to three referees for a given article.
These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author, though a referee can also send 'for your eyes only' comments to the editor; scientific journals observe this convention almost universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.
Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal, often chosen from options provided by the journal or funding agency. Most recommendations are along the lines of the following:
- to unconditionally accept the manuscript or the proposal,
- to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways,
- to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission,
- to reject it outright.
During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees, though she will most often do so. Furthermore, the referees in scientific publication do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. Proponents argue that if the reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other, the editor responsible for the paper can more easily verify the objectivity of the reviews. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus, with the decision instead often made by the editor based on her best judgement of the arguments. The group dynamics are thus substantially different from that of a jury.
In situations where multiple referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor will often solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. As another strategy in the case of ties, editors may invite authors to reply to a referee's criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If an editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the editor may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. An editor may convey communications back and forth between authors and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in these cases, however, editors do not allow multiple referees to confer with each other, though each reviewer may often see earlier comments submitted by other reviewers. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions, but instead to provide material for an informed editorial decision. Some medical journals, usually following the open access model, have begun posting on the Internet the pre-publication history of each individual article, from the original submission to reviewers' reports, authors' comments, and revised manuscripts.
Traditionally, reviewers would often remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard varies both with time and with academic field. In some academic fields, most journals offer the reviewer the option of remaining anonymous or not, or a referee may opt to sign a review, thereby relinquishing anonymity. Published papers sometimes contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper.
Most university presses undertake peer review of books. After positive review by two or three independent referees, a university press sends the manuscript to the press's editorial board, a committee of faculty members, for final approval.[32] Such a review process is a requirement for full membership of the Association of American University Presses.[33]
In some disciplines there exist refereed venues (such as conferences and workshops). To be admitted to speak, scholars and scientists must submit papers (generally short, often 15 pages or less) in advance. These papers are reviewed by a "program committee" (the equivalent of an editorial board), which generally requests inputs from referees. The hard deadlines set by the conferences tend to limit the options to either accepting or rejecting the paper.
Recruiting referees
At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor.[34] When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications.[35]
Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends and relatives.[citation needed] Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors may invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. For some journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also given the opportunity to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers).[citation needed]
Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and can not be experts in all of them. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in scientific journals, to each other (see Anonymous peer review). Policies on such matters may differ among academic disciplines.
Recruiting referees is a political art, because referees, and often editors, are usually not paid, and reviewing takes time away from the referee's main activities, such as his or her own research. To the would-be recruiter's advantage, most potential referees are authors themselves, or at least readers, who know that the publication system requires that experts donate their time. Referees also have the opportunity to prevent work that does not meet the standards of the field from being published, which is a position of some responsibility. Editors are at a special advantage in recruiting a scholar when they have overseen the publication of his or her work, or if the scholar is one who hopes to submit manuscripts to that editor's publication in the future. Granting agencies, similarly, tend to seek referees among their present or former grantees. Serving as a referee can even be a condition of a grant, or professional association membership.
Another difficulty that peer review organizers face is that, with respect to some manuscripts or proposals, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts. Such a circumstance often frustrates the goals of reviewer anonymity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also increases the chances that an organizer will not be able to recruit true experts – people who have themselves done work similar to that under review, and who can read between the lines. Low-prestige or local journals and granting agencies that award little money are especially handicapped with regard to recruiting experts.
Finally, anonymity adds to the difficulty in finding reviewers in another way. In scientific circles, credentials and reputation are important, and while being a referee for a prestigious journal is considered an honor, the anonymity restrictions make it unadvisable to publicly state that one was a referee for a particular article. However, credentials and reputation are principally established by publications, not by refereeing; and in some fields refereeing may not be anonymous.
Different styles of review
In "double-blind" review,[36] which is more common in the humanities than in the hard sciences, the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, lest the knowledge of authorship or concern about disapprobation from the author bias their review. Critics of the double-blind review process point out that, despite any editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person.[37][38] In many fields of big science, the publicly available operation schedules of major equipments, such as telescopes or synchrotrons, would make the authors' names obvious to anyone who would care to look them up. Proponents of double-blind review argue that it performs no worse than single-blind, and that it generates a perception of fairness and equality in academic funding and publishing.[39] Single-blind review is strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants, but no more so than double-blind review with easily identified authors.
A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer and author have a disproportionate amount of respect or disrespect for each other. As an alternative to single-blind and double-blind review, authors and reviewers are encouraged to declare their conflicts of interest when the names of authors and sometimes reviewers are known to the other. When conflicts are reported, the conflicting reviewer can be prohibited from reviewing and discussing the manuscript, or his or her review can instead be interpreted with the reported conflict in mind; the latter option is more often adopted when the conflict of interest is mild, such as an ancient professional connection or a distant family relation. The incentive for reviewers to declare their conflicts of interest is a matter of professional ethics and individual integrity. While their reviews are not public, these reviews are a matter of record and the reviewer's credibility depends upon how they represent themselves among their peers. Some software engineering journals, such as the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, use non-blind reviews with reporting to editors of conflicts of interest by both authors and reviewers.
A more rigorous standard of accountability is known as an audit. Because reviewers are not paid, they cannot be expected to put as much time and effort into a review as an audit requires. Therefore, academic journals such as Science, organizations such as the or the American Geophysical Union, and agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation maintain and archive scientific data and methods in the event another researcher wishes to replicate or audit the research after publication.[40][41][42]
Prepublication reviews
Anonymous peer review
Anonymous peer review, also called blind review, is a system of prepublication peer review of scientific articles or papers for journals or academic conferences by reviewers who are known to the journal editor or conference organizer but whose names are not given to the article's author. In some cases, the reviewers do not know the author's identity, as any identifying information is stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias, although this has been challenged – for example Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, asserts that the system has "well-known ills"[43] and advocates "open peer review". Others support blind reviewing because no research has suggested that the methodology may be harmful and that the cost of facilitating such reviews is minimal.[44] Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics.[45]
Attributed peer review
Attributed peer review describes a scientific literature concept and process, central to which is the various transparency and disclosure of the identities of those reviewing scientific publications. The concept thus represents a departure from, and an alternative to, the incumbent anonymous peer review process, in which non-disclosure of these identities toward the public – and toward the authors of the work under review – is default practice. Attributed peer reviews appear to constitute a response to modern criticisms of the incumbent system; therefore, its emergence may be partially attributed to these phenomena.
Postpublication reviews
|It has been suggested that Open peer commentary be merged into this section. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2014.
The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the prepublication peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature. A variation on this theme is open peer commentary; journals using this process solicit and publish non-anonymous commentaries on the "target paper" together with the paper, and with original authors' reply as a matter of course. The introduction of the "epub ahead of print" practice in many journals has made possible the simultaneous publication of unsolicited letters to the editor together with the original paper in the print issue.
Some journals use postpublication peer review as formal review method, instead of prepublication review. This was first introduced in 2001, by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).[46] More recently F1000Research, Science Open and The Winnower were launched with postpublication review as formal review method.[47][48][49] At both ACP and F1000Research peer reviewers are formally invited, much like at prepublication review journals. Articles that pass peer review at those two journals are included in external scholarly databases.[50] In addition to journals hosting their own articles' reviews, there are also external, independent websites dedicated to post-publication peer-review across entire fields, such as PubPeer, Publons, JournalReview.org, etc.
Criticism of peer review
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarked:
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.[51]
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said:
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[52]
Allegations of bias and suppression
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.[53] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[54][55] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[56][57][58] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[59][60] and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[61] A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.[62] A marketing professor argued that invited papers are more valuable because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[63]
Peer review failures
Peer review fails when a peer-reviewed article contains fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions and that could have been identified by more careful reviewers. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor.[64]
Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared. The process occasionally detects fraud, but is not designed to do so.[65]
An experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers failed to detect some manuscript errors and the majority of reviewers may not notice that the conclusions of the paper are unsupported by its results.[66]
When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted.
Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.[67][68][69]
There have also been instances where peer review is claimed to be performed but in fact it is not; this has been documented in some predatory open access journals (e.g., the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? affair) or in the case of sponsored Elsevier journals.
Peer review and plagiarism
Reviewers generally lack access to raw data, but do see the full text of the manuscript, and are typically familiar with recent publications in the area. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism of prose than fraudulent data. A few cases of such textual plagiarism by historians, for instance, have been widely publicized.[70] On the scientific side, a poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health found 0.3% admitted faking data and 1.4% admitted plagiarism.[71]
Additionally, 4.7% of the same poll admitted to self-plagiarism or autoplagiarism,[71] in which an author republishes the same material, data, or text, without citing their earlier work. An author often uses autoplagiarism to pad their list of publications. Journals and employers often do not severely punish authors for self-plagiarism, though it is against the rules of most peer-reviewed journals which require that only unpublished material be submitted. It may additionally be in violation of copyright law.
Abuse of inside information by reviewers
A related form of professional misconduct that is sometimes reported is a reviewer using the not-yet-published information from a manuscript or grant application for personal or professional gain. The frequency with which this happens is unknown, but the United States Office of Research Integrity has sanctioned reviewers who have been caught exploiting knowledge they gained as reviewers. A possible defense (for authors) against this form of misconduct on the part of reviewers is to pre-publish their work in the form of a preprint or technical report on a public system such as arXiv. The preprint can later be used to establish priority, although this violates the stated policies of some journals.
Corrective measures
Many journals deal with peer review failures by publishing letters,[72] though some opt not to do so. Retraction of an article may be required. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. However, neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if a peer review failure occurred.
- "Perhaps the most widely recognized failure of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were rejected by some peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox."[73]
- The trapezoidal rule, in which the method of Riemann sums for numerical integration was republished in a Diabetes research journal, Diabetes Care.[74] The method is almost always taught in high school calculus, and was thus considered an example of an extremely well known idea being re-branded as a new discovery.
- A conference organized by the Wessex Institute of Technology was the target of an exposé by three researchers who wrote nonsensical papers (including one that was composed of random phrases). They reported that the papers were "reviewed and provisionally accepted" and concluded that the conference was an attempt to "sell" publication possibilities to less experienced or naive researchers.[75] This may however be better described as a lack of any actual peer review, rather than peer review having failed.
- Refereeing performed on behalf of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has also been subject to criticism after fake papers were discovered in conference publications, most notably by Labbé and Labbé and a researcher using the pseudonym of Herbert Schlangemann.[76][77][78][79][80][81]
- In 2014, an editorial was published in Nature highlighting problems with the peer-review process.[82][83]
Improvement efforts: Open peer review
Efforts to make fundamental improvements have ebbed and flowed since the late 1970s when Rennie first systematically reviewed articles in thirty medical journals. According to Ana Marušić, "Nothing much has changed in 25 years". Mentorship has not been shown to have a positive effect. Worse, little evidence indicates that peer review as presently performed, improves the quality of published papers.[19]
In response to these criticisms, other systems of peer review with various degrees of "openness" have been suggested. Open peer review describes a scholarly/scientific literature concept and process, central to which is the various transparency and disclosure of the identities of those reviewing scientific publications. The concept thus represents a departure from, and an alternative to, the incumbent anonymous peer review process, in which non-disclosure of these identities toward the public – and toward the authors of the work under review – is default practice. The open peer review concept appears to constitute a response to modern criticisms of the incumbent system and therefore its emergence may be partially attributed to these phenomena.
Starting in the 1990s, several scientific journals (including the high impact journal Nature in 2006) started experiments with hybrid peer review processes, often allowing the open peer reviews in parallel to the traditional model. The initial evidence of the effects of open peer reviews were mixed. Identifying reviewers to the authors do not negatively impact, and may potentially have a positive impact, upon the quality of reviews, the recommendation regarding publication, the tone and the time spent on reviewing. However, more of those who are invited to review decline to do so.[84][85] Informing reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web and available to the wider public also did not have a negative impact on quality of reviews and recommendations regarding publication, but it does lead to a longer time spent on reviewing, besides a higher reviewer decline rate.[86] These results suggests that open peer review is feasible, and does not lead to poorer quality of reviews, although it does have to be balanced against the potential increase in review time, and higher decline rates among invited reviewers.
Throughout the 2000s academic journals based solely on the concept of open peer review were launched, such as Philica. An extension of peer review beyond the date of publication is open peer commentary, whereby expert commentaries are solicited on published articles and the authors are encouraged to respond.
The traditional anonymous peer review has been criticized for its lack of accountability, the possibility of abuse by reviewers or by those who manage the peer review process (that is, journal editors),[87] its possible bias, and its inconsistency,[88] alongside other flaws.[89][90] Both processes are intended to subject scholarly publications to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.
A number of reputable medical publishers have trialed the Open Peer Review concept. The first open peer review trial was conducted by The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) in cooperation with the University of Sydney Library, from March 1996 to June 1997. In that study 56 research articles accepted for publication in the MJA were published online together with the peer reviewers' comments; readers could email their comments and the authors could amend their articles further before print publication of the article.[91] The investigators concluded that the process had modest benefits for authors, editors and readers.
Early era: 1996–2000
In 1996, the Journal of Interactive Media in Education[92] launched using open peer review.[93] Reviewers' names are made public and they are therefore accountable for their review, but they also have their contribution acknowledged. Authors have the right of reply, and other researchers have the chance to comment prior to publication. As of February 2013, the "Journal of Interactive Media in Education" no longer uses open peer review.[94]
In 1997, the Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence was launched as an open access journal by the European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence. This journal used a two-stage review process. In the first stage, papers that passed a quick screen by the editors were immediately published on the Transaction's discussion website for the purpose of on-line public discussion during a period of at least three months, where the contributors' names were made public except in exceptional cases. At the end of the discussion period, the authors were invited to submit a revised version of the article, and anonymous referees decided whether the revised manuscript would be accepted to the journal or not, but without any option for the referees to propose further changes. The last issue of this journal appeared in 2001.
In 1999, the open access journal Journal of Medical Internet Research[95] was launched, which from its inception decided to publish the names of the reviewers at the bottom of each published article. Also in 1999, the British Medical Journal[96] moved to an open peer review system, revealing reviewers' identities to the authors (but not the readers),[97] and in 2000, the medical journals in the open access BMC series[98] published by BioMed Central, launched using open peer review. As with the BMJ, the reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. In addition, if the article is published the reports are made available online as part of the 'pre-publication history'.
Several of the other journals published by the BMJ Group allow optional open peer review,[99] as do PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science.[100][101] The BMJ's Rapid Responses[102] allow ongoing debate and criticism following publication.[103]
Recent era: 2001–present
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP), an open access journal launched in 2001 by the European Geosciences Union, has a two-stage publication process.[46] In the first stage, papers that pass a quick screen by the editors are immediately published on the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions (ACPD) website. They are then subject to interactive public discussion alongside formal peer review. Referees' comments (either anonymous or attributed), additional short comments by other members of the scientific community (which must be attributed) and the authors' replies are also published in ACPD. In the second stage, the peer-review process is completed and, if the article is formally accepted by the editors, the final revised papers are published in ACP. The success of this approach is shown by the ranking by Thomson Reuters of ACP as the top journal in the field of Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences.[104]
In June 2006, Nature launched an experiment in parallel open peer review—some articles that had been submitted to the regular anonymous process were also available online for open, identified public comment.[105] The results were less than encouraging – only 5% of authors agreed to participate in the experiment, and only 54% of those articles received comments.[106][107] The editors have suggested that researchers may have been too busy to take part and were reluctant to make their names public. The knowledge that articles were simultaneously being subjected to anonymous peer review may also have affected the uptake.
In 2006, a group of UK academics launched the online journal Philica, which tries to redress many of the problems of traditional peer review. Unlike in a normal journal, all articles submitted to Philica are published immediately and the review process takes place afterwards. Reviews are still anonymous, but instead of reviewers being chosen by an editor, any researcher who wishes to review an article can do so. Reviews are displayed at the end of each article, and so are used to give the reader criticism or guidance about the work, rather than to decide whether it is published or not. This means that reviewers cannot suppress ideas if they disagree with them. Readers use reviews to guide what they read, and particularly popular or unpopular work is easy to identify.
Another approach that is similar in spirit to Philica is that of a dynamical peer review site, Naboj.[108] Unlike Philica, Naboj is not a full-fledged online journal, but rather it provides an opportunity for users to write peer reviews of preprints at ArXiv. The review system is modeled on Amazon and users have an opportunity to evaluate the reviews as well as the articles. That way, with a sufficient number of users and reviewers, there should be a convergence towards a higher quality review process.
In February 2006, the journal Biology Direct was launched by BioMed Central, providing another alternative to the traditional model of peer review. If authors can find three members of the Editorial Board who will each return a report or will themselves solicit an external review, then the article will be published. As with Philica, reviewers cannot suppress publication, but in contrast to Philica, no reviews are anonymous and no article is published without being reviewed. Authors have the opportunity to withdraw their article, to revise it in response to the reviews, or to publish it without revision. If the authors proceed with publication of their article despite critical comments, readers can clearly see any negative comments along with the names of the reviewers.[109]
In 2010, the British Medical Journal began publishing signed reviewer's reports alongside accepted papers, after determining that telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted publicly did not significantly affect the quality of the reviews.[110]
Starting in 2013 with the launch of F1000Research, some publishers have combined open peer review with postpublication peer review by using a versioned article system. At F1000Research, articles are published before review, and invited peer review reports (and reviewer names) are published with the article as they come in.[47] Author-revised versions of the article are then linked to the original. A similar postpublication review system with versioned articles is used by Science Open and The Winnower, both launched in 2014.[48][49]
In 2014, Life implanted an open peer review system,[111] under which the peer-review reports and authors' responses are published as an integral part of the final version of each article.
An extension of peer review beyond the date of publication is Open Peer Commentary, whereby expert commentaries are solicited on published articles, and the authors are encouraged to respond. In the summer of 2009, Kathleen Fitzpatrick explored open peer review and commentary in her book, Planned Obsolescence.
Another form of "open peer review" is community-based pre-publication peer-review, where the review process is open for everybody to join.[citation needed]
Peer review of government policy
The technique of peer review is also used to improve government policy. In particular, the European Union uses it as a tool in the 'Open Method of Co-ordination' of policies in the fields of employment and social inclusion. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews, uses the technique of peer review to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies.
A program of peer reviews in active labour market policy[112] started in 1999, and was followed in 2004 by one in social inclusion.[113] Each program sponsors about eight peer review meetings in each year, in which a 'host country' lays a given policy or initiative open to examination by half a dozen other countries and the relevant European-level NGOs. These usually meet over two days and include visits to local sites where the policy can be seen in operation. The meeting is preceded by the compilation of an expert report on which participating 'peer countries' submit comments. The results are published on the web.
The State of California is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the California Governor signed into law Senate Bill 1320 (Sher), Chapter 295, statutes of 1997, which mandates that, before any CalEPA Board, Department, or Office adopts a final version of a rule-making, the scientific findings, conclusions, and assumptions on which the proposed rule are based must be submitted for independent external scientific peer review. This requirement is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004.
Medical peer review
Medical peer review may refer to clinical peer review, or the peer evaluation of clinical teaching skills for both physicians and nurses,[114][115] or scientific peer review of journal articles, or to a secondary round of peer review for the clinical value of articles concurrently published in medical journals.[116] Moreover, "medical peer review" has been used by the American Medical Association to refer not only to the process of improving quality and safety in health care organizations, but also to the process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards.[117][118] Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term.
See also
- Academic authorship
- Academic bias
- Academic conference
- Academic journal
- Abstract management
- Adversarial review
- Collaborative document review
- Coercive citation
- Interdisciplinary peer review
- Journal club
- Objectivity (philosophy)
- Open peer commentary
- Peer group
- Publication bias
- Reporting bias
- Scholarly method
- Software peer review
- Sternberg peer review controversy
- Technical peer review
|This article has an unclear citation style. (September 2009)
- ^ Hirschauer, S. (2010). "Editorial judgements: A praxeology of 'voting' in peer review". Social Studies of Science 40 (1): 71–103. doi:10.1177/0306312709335405.
- ^ http://www.ruor.uottawa.ca
- ^ http://www.ruor.uottawa.ca
- ^ Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research
- ^ On Being a Scientist National Academies Press
- ^ The Origin of the Scientific Journal and the Process of Peer Review House of Commons Select Committee Report
- ^ Google Books
- ^ [1]
- ^ Gould, T.P.H. (2012). Do We Still Need Peer Review?. The Scarecrow Press.
- ^ Biagioli, M. (2002). "From book censorship to academic peer review". Emergences 12 (1): 11–45. doi:10.1080/1045722022000003435.
- ^ Spier, R. (2002). "The history of the peer review process". TRENDS in Biotechnology 20 (8): 357–358. PMID 12127284. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6.
- ^ Rip, A. (1985). "Commentary: Peer Review is Alive and Well in the United States". Science, Technology, and Human Values 10 (3): 82–86. doi:10.1177/016224398501000310.
- ^ Benos, Dale J. et al. (2007). "The Ups and Downs of Peer Review". Advances in Physiology Education 31 (2): 145–152. PMID 17562902. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006.
p. 145 – Scientific peer review has been defined as the evaluation of research findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. These peers act as sentinels on the road of scientific discovery and publication.
- ^ "Benefits and Burdens of Peer-Review". From the Editor. BioTechniques 58 (1). January 2015. p. 5.
- ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology 20 (8): 357–8. PMID 12127284. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6.
- ^ Pontille, David and Torny, Didier (2014). "From Manuscript Evaluation to Article Valuation: The Changing Technologies of Journal Peer Review". Human Studies 38: 57. doi:10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z.
- ^ Kennefick, Daniel (September 2005). "Einstein Versus the Physical Review". Physics Today 58 (9): 43–48. Bibcode:2005PhT....58i..43K. doi:10.1063/1.2117822.
- ^ "Coping with peer rejection". Nature 425 (6959): 645. October 16, 2003. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..645.. PMID 14562060. doi:10.1038/425645a.
- ^ a b Couzin-Frankel, J. (2013). "Secretive and Subjective, Peer Review Proves Resistant to Study". Science 341 (6152): 1331. PMID 24052283. doi:10.1126/science.341.6152.1331.
- ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image" (PDF). Ann. Intern. Med. 118 (7): 566–8. PMID 8442628. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014.
- ^ Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Ratener P, Read WA, Morrison K; Weinstein; Ratener; Read; Morrison (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". Am. J. Public Health 68 (4): 394–401. PMC 1653950. PMID 645987. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394.
- ^ "AICPA Peer Review Manual". American Institute of CPAs. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
- ^ 2012 Peer Review Program Manual
- ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
- ^ "Peer Review Ratings". Martindale. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
- ^ a b "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved October 4, 2010.
- ^ a b Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education 18: 105–108.
The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals
- ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience 52 (9): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2.
- ^ "History of the journal Nature: Timeline". Macmillan Publishers Limited. 2013. Retrieved 12 November 2013.
- ^ The NASA study of arsenic-based life was fatally flawed, say scientists. – Slate Magazine
- ^ Cohen, Patricia (August 23, 2010). "For Scholars, Web Changes Sacred Rite of Peer Review". The New York Times.
- ^ Arnold, Gordon B. (2003). "University presses". In James W. Guthrie. Encyclopedia of Education 7 (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. p. 2601. ISBN 0-02-865601-6.
- ^ "AAUP Membership Benefits and Eligibility". Association of American University Presses. Retrieved February 2, 2008.
- ^ Lawrence O'Gorman (January 2008). "The (Frustrating) State of Peer Review" (PDF). IAPR Newsletter 30 (1): 3–5.
- ^ Samuel M. Schwartz, Donald W. Slater, Fred P. Heydrick, and Gillian R. Woolett (September 1995). "A Report of the AIBS Peer-Review Process for the US Army's 1994 Breast Cancer Initiative". BioScience 45 (8): 558–563. JSTOR 1312702. doi:10.1093/bioscience/45.8.558.
- ^ Cressey, Daniel (2014). "Journals weigh up double-blind peer review". Nature News. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15564. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
- ^ Action Potential: Double-blind peer review?
- ^ "Editorial: Working double-blind". Nature 451 (7179): 605–6. February 2008. Bibcode:2008Natur.451R.605.. PMID 18256621. doi:10.1038/451605b.
- ^ Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D (September 2005). "Peer review—the newcomers' perspective". PLoS Biol. 3 (9): e326. PMC 1201308. PMID 16149851. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326.
- ^
"Policy on Referencing Data in and Archiving Data for AGU Publications". American Geophysical Union. 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-08.
The following policy has been adopted for AGU publications in order to ensure that they can effectively and efficiently perform an expanded role in making the underlying data for articles available to researchers now and in the future.
- This policy was first adopted by the AGU Publications Committee in November 1993 and then revised March 1994, December 1995, October 1996.
- See also AGU Data Policy by Bill Cook. April 4, 2012.
- ^ "Data Management & Sharing Frequently Asked Questions". National Science Foundation. November 30, 2010. Retrieved 2012-09-08.
- ^ Reagan W. Moore, Arcot Rajasekar, Michael Wan (2006-03-13). "Data Grids, Digital Libraries, and Persistent Archives: An Integrated Approach to Sharing, Publishing, and Archiving Data" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE 93: 578–588. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2004.842761. Retrieved 2014-02-02.
- ^ Koonin, Eugene (2006). "Reviving a culture of scientific debate". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05005.
- ^ J. Scott Armstrong (1982). "Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author's Formula" (PDF). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2): 197–199. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00011201.
- ^ J. Scott Armstrong (1982). "Research on Scientific Journals: Implications for Editors and Authors" (PDF). Journal of Forecasting 1: 83–104. doi:10.1002/for.3980010109.
- ^ a b Pöschl, Ulrich (2012). "Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation". Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00033.
- ^ a b "Publish First, Ask Questions Later". Wired. July 23, 2013. Retrieved 2015-01-13.
- ^ a b "The recipe for our (not so) secret Post-Publication Peer Review sauce!". December 8, 2014. Retrieved 2015-01-13.
- ^ a b "The Winnower: An Interview with Josh Nicholson". December 8, 2014. Retrieved 2015-01-13.
- ^ "F1000Research peer-reviewed articles now visible on PubMed and PubMed Central". STM Publishing News. December 12, 2013. Retrieved 2015-01-13.
- ^ Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (March 19, 2003). "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research". JAMA 289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438.
- ^ Horton, Richard (2000). "Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up". MJA 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580.
- ^ Bradley, (1981)
- ^ "British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report" (2004) EurekAlert Public release date: August 16, 2004
- ^ Higgs, Robert (May 7, 2007). "Peer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth". Independent Institute. Retrieved April 9, 2012.
- ^ Brian Martin, "Suppression Stories" (1997) in Fund for Intellectual Dissent ISBN 0-646-30349-X
- ^ See also Juan Miguel Campanario, "Rejecting Nobel class articles and resisting Nobel class discoveries", cited in Nature, October 16, 2003, Vol 425, Issue 6959, p.645
- ^ Campanario, Juan Miguel; Martin, Brian; Martin (Fall 2004). "Challenging dominant physics paradigms". Journal of Scientific Exploration 18 (3): 421–38. Bibcode:2008atcr.book...11C.
- ^ "... they may strongly resist a rival's hypothesis that challenges their own." Malice's Wonderland: Research Funding and Peer Review Journal of Neurobiology 14, No. 2., pp. 95–112 (1983).
- ^ Francisco Grimaldo and Mario Paolucci (14 March 2013). "A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review". Advances in Complex Systems 16: 1350004. doi:10.1142/S0219525913500045.
- ^ See also: Sophie Petit-Zeman, "Trial by peers comes up short" (2003) The Guardian, Thursday January 16, 2003
- ^ H. Fang. "Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly", Scientometrics 87(2), pp. 293-301 (2011)
- ^ J. Scott Armstrong. "Reply by: J. Scott Armstrong, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, "Democracy Does Not Make Good Science: On Reforming Review Procedures for Management Science Journals,"" (PDF). Interfaces 28: 88–91.
- ^ Afifi, M. "Reviewing the "Letter-to-editor" section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000–2004". Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
- ^ "Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings." Lee, K. (2006). "Increasing accountability". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature05007.
- ^ W. G. Baxt, J. F. Waeckerle, J. A. Berlin & M. L. Callaham (September 1998). "Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance". Annals of Emergency Medicine 32 (3 Pt 1): 310–317. PMID 9737492. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70006-X.
- ^ Rothwell, P. M.; Martyn, CN (2000). "Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?". Brain 123 (9): 1964–9. PMID 10960059. doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.
- ^ The Peer Review Process
- ^ Alison McCook (February 2006). "Is Peer Review Broken?". The Scientist.
- ^ Historians on the Hot Seat
- ^ a b Weiss, Rick. 2005. Many scientists admit to misconduct: Degrees of deception vary in poll. Washington Post. June 9, 2005. page A03.[2]
- ^ Afifi, M. "Reviewing the "Letter-to-editor" section in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000-2004". Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
- ^ Michaels, David, Politicizing Peer Review: Scientific Perspective in Wagner, Wendy and Rena Steinzor, eds., Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research, Cambridge University Press, 2006 p. 224, ISBN 978-0-521-85520-4 Google books excerpt
- ^ Tai, M. M. (1994). "A mathematical model for the determination of total area under glucose tolerance and other metabolic curves". Diabetes Care 17 (2): 152–4. PMID 8137688. doi:10.2337/diacare.17.2.152.
- ^ Purgathofer, Werner. "Beware of VIDEA!". tuwien.ac.at. Technical University of Vienna. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- ^ Labbé, Cyril; Labbé, Dominique (2013). "Duplicate and fake publications in the scientific literature: how many SCIgen papers in computer science?". Scientometrics (Springer) 94 (1): 379–396. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0781-y.
- ^ Oransky, Ivan (February 24, 2014). "Springer, IEEE withdrawing more than 120 nonsense papers". retractionwatch.com. WordPress.com. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- ^ de Gloucester, Paul Colin (2013). "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications". Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance (Taylor & Francis Group) 20 (3): 143–166. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.788379.
- ^ Dawson, K. (December 23, 2008). "Software-Generated Paper Accepted At IEEE Conference". slashdot.org. Dice. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- ^ Hatta, Masayuki (December 24, 2008). "IEEEカンファレンス、自動生成のニセ論文をアクセプト". slashdot.jp. OSDN Corporation. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- ^ Ziegler, Peter-Michael (December 26, 2008). "Dr. Herbert Schlangemann - oder die Geschichte eines pseudowissenschaftlichen Nonsens-Papiers". heise.de. Heise Zeitschriften Verlag. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- ^ Jackson, A. "Peer review – loopholes, hackers and scams". Australian Veterinary Association. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
- ^ Ferguson, C., Marcus, A. and Oransky, I. (2014). "Publishing: The peer-review scam". Nature 515 (7528).
- ^ Van Rooyen, S; Godlee, F; Evans, S; Black, N; Smith, R (1999). "Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial". BMJ 318 (7175): 23–7. PMC 27670. PMID 9872878. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.
- ^ Elizabeth Walsh, Maeve Rooney, Louis Appleby, Greg Wilkinson (2000). "Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial". The British Journal of Psychiatry 176 (1): 47–51. PMID 10789326. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47.
- ^ van Rooyen, Susan; Delamothe, Tony; Evans, Stephen J W (16 November 2010). "Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.". British Medical Journal (341): c5729. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5729.
- ^ Bingham C. Peer review and the ethics of internet publishing. In: Hudson Jones A, McLellan F, editors. Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000: pages 85-111.
- ^ Peter M. Rothwell, Christopher N. Martyn (2000). "Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?". Brain 123 (9): 1964–1969. PMID 10960059. doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1964.
- ^ "The Peer Review Process" (PDF). Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ Alison McCook (February 2006). "Is Peer Review Broken?". The Scientist.
- ^ Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden M. The Medical Journal of Australia internet peer review study" The Lancet 1998; 358: 441-445.
- ^ "Journal of Interactive Media in Education". Jime.open.ac.uk. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/about.html#lifecycle
- ^ Editorial Policies | Journal of Interactive Media in Education
- ^ "JMIR Home". Jmir.org. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ "bmj.com: BMJ – Helping doctors make better decisions". BMJ. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ "Opening up BMJ peer review – Smith 318 (7175): 4". BMJ. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ "BMC series". Biomedcentral.com. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ Smith. R. (1999). Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ, 318, 4-5. PMID, online
- ^ "Public Library of Science". Plos.org. 28 September 2011. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ "PLoS Medicine: A Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access Journal". Journals.plos.org. 27 March 2009. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ bmj.com Rapid Responses published in the past day[dead link]
- ^ Tony Delamothe, web editor bmj.com, Richard Smith, editor. "Twenty thousand conversations – Delamothe and Smith 324 (7347): 1171". BMJ. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/news_acp_jcr2007_attachment.pdf
- ^ Peer Review Trial[dead link]
- ^ Nature. "Overview: Nature's trial of open peer review". Nature.com. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ Nature (21 December 2006). "Peer review and fraud: Article". Nature. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ "Naboj Dynamical Peer Review". Naboj.com. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
- ^ http://www.biology-direct.com/info/about/
- ^ van Rooyen, Susan; Delamothe, Tony; Evans, Stephen JW (2010). "Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial". British Medical Journal 341: c5729. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5729.
- ^ "Editorial". Retrieved 2014-06-29.
- ^ Mutual Learning Programme – Peer Reviews
- ^ Peer Review and Assessment in Social Inclusion—Evaluations par les pairs
- ^ Medschool.ucsf.edu
- ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M; Dieckman; Herdtner; Dugan; Roche (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17–20. PMID 9934106. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008.
- ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA 295 (15): 1801–8. PMID 16622142. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801.
- ^ (page 131)
- ^ Ama-assn.org
General references and further reading
- Bradley, James V. (1981). "Pernicious Publication Practices". Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 18: 31–34. doi:10.3758/bf03333562.
- Godlee, Fiona; Jefferson, Tom, eds. (2003). Peer Review in Health Sciences (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books. ISBN 0-7279-1685-8.
- Hames, Irene (2007). Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-3159-9.
- Shatz, David, ed. (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742514348.
- de Vries, Jaap (2001). "Peer Review: The Holy Cow of Science". In E.H. Frederiksson. A Century of Science Publishing. IOS Press. ISBN 1-58603-148-1.
- Weller, Ann C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, New Jersey: American Society for Information Science and Technology. ISBN 1-57387-100-1. (extensive bibliography).
- "I don't know what to believe… – Making Sense of Science Stories" (PDF). Sense About Science. October 31, 2005.
External links
Unknown extension tag "indicator"
- "Peer review debate". Nature. June 2006.
- "Peer-to-Peer blog". Nature. April 2012.
- Maggie Koerth-Baker (April 22, 2012). "Meet Science: What is "peer review"?". BoingBoing.
- "Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication". American Medical Association.
- Walter Noll (2009) The Future of Scientific Publication
- Hans Ulrik Riisgård. "Peer review system". Marine Ecology Progress Series. Inter-research Science Center.
- Eugene Garfield. "A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine". University of Pennsylvania. (Bibliography)
- "Peer Review in Science and Medicine: Investigating Peer Review as Scientific Object of study".
- Ulrich Pöschl. "Quality Assurance & Peer Review in Open Access" (PDF).
- (January 23, 2012) Online Social Network Seeks to Overhaul Peer Review in Scientific Publishing


text:
Good afternoon,
I couldn't find a good intro thread to post in so here we are.
First, I currently live in central New Jersey and go to the gym 3x a week doing weight training and run on the treadmill. Most of my previous experience with climbing is bouldering and in regards to high climates I lived in Boone, NC(around 3k ft/1km up).
My ultimate goal is to make an attempt on the Matterhorn in 2012. RIght now my plan is to make an attempt on Mt Washington next February and Grand Teton next August and(assuming that the first two work out well) an attempt on the Matterhorn. I am planning to use a guide for all three rocks(going with Eastern Mountain Sports climbing school for Washington and Exum for Teton).
In regards to training for the Matterhorn I've read everything from "Be able to run a lot" to "OMG you must be able to climb skyscrapers with your pinky finger!" As right now it looks like an attempt on the Matterhorn will cost me just over $6000 USD I'd like to hear a little more from people who have done it.
First, in the continental US, are Washington and Teton good preparation rocks for the Matterhorn? If not, what do you think are some good ones(if you have good ideas in the eastern US, even better!)? What are some good training methods if you don't live within a stone's throw of big rocks? Are there any FAQs you'd recommend?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It's that time of year when magazines and media are all publishing top-tens, and the best of lists. We thought, let's ask the readers what they think was the best of bikes this year.
Looking at our stats, here's what you searched for, read, and responded to the most.
- Typical searches
- Fat guy, pink bike, amsterdam, steampunk, bike hugger
- Popular tags
- urban, MarkV, photos, racing, commute.
- Popular entries
- Kona Ute, In The Bike Shop: The "Bro" Deal, Bike Blogs, aero wheel wisdom, Helmet Laws in Effect.
- Popular photos
- Pam & Palin: on Stage, Trek Soho S Japan Spotted, Kona Ute Bike, Hugger @ SXSW Day 2: Drunk, No Makeup, Riding to work, Big Dummy Spotted.
- Popular goods
- Tees, Socks, Jerseys.
- Popular videos
- Huggacast 49: Bianchi Oh-Nine, Huggacast 45: Look 09, Huggacast 63: Dura Ace Electric Di2, Mavic Shoes, Huggacast 36: Scenes from Shanghai.
One of our most popular photos, the Trek Soho S.
So what did you think was the best? The Big Dummy? All the people that bike to worked? Let's discuss …


text:
§¨¦40 §¨¦35
Crutcho Crk
Crutcho Crk
Crutcho Crk
Crutcho Crk
Crutcho Crk
Oak Crk
North Canadian Riv
Oak Crk
N Kelham
SE 59th St
Laurel Ct
S Sunnylane Rd
Ryan Ct
Cinderella Ct
Lincoln Sq
Central Expy
Eden Cir
Mallard Cir
I- 35 Svc Rd
Angela Cir
S Bryant Ave
Sunnylane Cir
Ironwood Ct
Sunnylane Pl
Park Cir
Hawkins St
McNickle Dr
Jade Way
E I-40 Hwy
Bath Ave
Elderberry Ct
S Eastern Ave
Dimple Ave
SE 59th Pl
SE 42nd Ter
Pybas Ln
Dogwood Ct
Ray Dr
Pole Rd Bath Cir
Crabapple Ct
S Bryant Ave
Holland Dr
Fonshell Ave
Madera Ter
Entry Dr
Gina Cir
Jupiter Pl
SE 56th Cir
N Kate
SE 82nd Cir
SE 82nd Pl
SE 65th St
S Terry Joe Ave
S Sooner Rd
Grape Ct
Union Cir
Nabors Dr
Promise Ln
S Steve Ave
SE 5th
Mundell St
Federal Ct
Wilson Pl
SE 50th Ter
N Everest Ave
N Idaho Ave
McNickle St
Char Ln
Dimple Dr
Henryetta Ave
Eastwood Cir
SE 50th St
SE 83rd Pl
SE 84th Pl
SE 81st St
Trigg Dr
S Fairmont Ave
S Adeline Ave
N Missouri Ave
SE 24th St
Haindl Dr
SE 2nd St
Hudiberg Dr
SE 81st Ter
Edinburg Way
Tina Dr
Kaeylee Ln
Royalwood Cir
64th St
SE 45th Ter
Monica Dr
Megan Dr
SE 48th Pl
Timothy Ln
Jason Dr
Royal Creek Ct
S Georgia Pl
John Robert Dr
Crosby Dr
Muzny Ln
Wright Dr
Crosby Blvd
SE 22nd Cir
S Bill Ave
Eastside Dr
Canyon Trail Dr
Spaatz Dr
SE 33rd St
Ridglea Ct
Jacks Ave
Suntane Rd
Vick Cir
Mustang St
Bomarc Dr
Iowa Dr
Royal Ridge Rd
Hicks Ln
SE 28th St
SE 37th St
Oklahoma Cir
Trosper Pl
SE 27th St
S Arrow Dr
Bennie Ter
Hartsdel Dr
SE 8th Pl
Alviola Ave
Lilly Ln
S Missouri Ave
Damron Dr
SE 47th Ter
Jeffery Dr
Michael Pl
Lenora Ave
SE 25th Ter
Alan Ln
Rd Easement
Loch Ln
S Kelham Ave
N Michigan St
Apollo Dr
SE 22nd
Brentco Dr
S Glenn Ave
Eagle Creek Way
SE 61st Ter
Munser St
Cheek Pl
S Georgia Ter
Daisy Ln
S I-35 Svc Rd
SE 64th St
SE 14th St
Carrie Ln
SE 13th St
SE 12th St
St Matthews Dr
SE 65th Pl
Foster Dr
Everest Ave
SE 11th St
SE 49th St
NE 2nd St
62nd St
61st St
SE 47th St
Wellington Parke
SE 48th Ter
Tempo Dr
SE 18th Pl
Vera Pl
Itio Blvd
SE 49th Ter
Tyanne Blvd
SE 4th St
Tinker Rd
SE 18th St
SE 17th St
SE 58th St
Verna Marie Dr
SE 41st St
Beechwood Ave
Scirocco Cir
Eastbrook Ter
SE 60th St
June Ln
Pinewood Dr
Mistletoe Ave
Royal Ln
Vfw Dr
Montclair Rd
Montclair Dr
N Wisconsin Ave
McCracken Dr
Teal Dr
Mark Dr
Short St
SE 62nd St
Tanglewood Dr
Covered Wagon Dr
SE 89th Ter
Embers Dr
SE 23rd Ter
Pat Ave
Cinder Dr
Chennault Dr
SE 84th Ter
Chumley Ln
Darla Dr
Firethorn Dr
Hanna Dr
Terry Ave
Doris Ave
Pam Pl
del Haven Dr
SE 68th St
SE 61st St
Woodmont Dr
Briarlane Rd
S I- 35 Svc Rd
SE 52nd St
Shalimar Dr
SE 17th St
SE 63rd St
Park Vista Dr
Buena Vista Ave
SE 45th Pl
SE 52nd St
Royal Oak Dr
Ridgeway Dr
SE 21st Pl
Kristie Dr
S Highland Park Dr
S Pat Ave
Crosspointe Dr
Englewood Rd
Elmview Dr
Fontana Ln
Montrose Dr
Cascade Dr
SE 38th St
Meench Dr
Bryant Pl
SE 43rd St
S Karen Dr
SE 20th St
N Eastern Ave
NE 6th St
S Rhode Island Ave
S Kathy Dr
Connie Dr
Crosby Dr
SE 45th St
SE 58th Pl
S Gould Ave
SE 30th St
N Woodcrest Dr
Thomas Ave
Pine Ave
Twilight Dr
Trapp Dr
Azurewood St
SE 42nd St
Trosper Rd
Jenny Ln
Holly Brooke Ln
Leslie Dr
SE 83rd St
SE 66th St
SE 57th St
Hampton Dr
Woodhue Dr
Breezewood Dr
Stonewood Dr
SE 13th St
SE 6th St
Spiva Dr
Carolyn Dr
del Porte Dr
Kindling Ln
Beechwo od Dr
Bismarc Dr
Liberty Trails Bl
Beacon Hill Rd
Laverne Ave
Cunningham Dr
Chad Rd
S Lowery St
Erryn Ln
SE 47th St
SE 26th St
Ryan Dr
SE 10th Pl
Newport Dr
NE 2nd St
N High Ave
Coble St
Live Oak Dr
SE 14th St
Woodbend Ln
SE 10th St
SE 9th St
S Glenn Ave
Tate Dr
SE 32nd St
Greenway Ter
Lamar Dr
el Toro Dr
SE 48th St
Burk Way
Burk Dr
S Stonewall Ave
S Clanton Ct
Evanbrook Ter
SE 39th St
SE 14th Pl
S Mathews Pl
S Townley Dr
SE 43rd St
SE 4th St
Sunvalley Dr
SE 58th St
S Nebraska Ave
SE 56th St
Joes Dr
S Highland Dr
SE 42nd St
Michael Dr
Brookdale Dr
S Everest Ave
Sunnyview Dr
del Crest Dr
S Voorhees St
SE 55th St
SE 87th St
SE 88th St
N Bath Ave
Wellington Lakes Dr
Glenn Ave
NE Grand Blvd
Jones Ave
Hillside Dr
Lisa Ln
Becker Pl
Linda Ln
SE 23rd St
Eden Dr
S Ventura Dr
Simmons Dr
Woodview Dr
Kim Dr
E California Ave
Akers Ave
S Briarwood Dr
Bigwood Dr
SE 78th St
34th St
Eric Dr
N Stonewall Ave
Timberwood Ln
del Aire Pl
SE 19th St
SE 84th St
Frye Ln
SE 48th St
Spitz Dr
Princess Ln
Azurewood Dr
Reserve Rd
Bent Creek Dr
Frostwood Ter
SE 77th St
Empire Blvd
SE 19th Ter
N Peebly Dr
Karen Dr
SE 46th St
Eagles Lndg
NE 4th St
Cloverlawn Dr
SE 61st St
SE 86th Pl
S Kelley Ave
Delia St
SE 82nd St
SE 80th St
Oakbrook Dr
SE 8th St
S Kate Ave
SE 9th St
SE 10th St
Tinker Diagonal St
S Branch St
Oak Valley Rd
SE 18th St
Trina Dr
N Kate Ave
Greenview Dr
Hampton Ave
SE 50th St
Knox Dr
SE 79th St
SE 49th St
Breckenridge Dr
Ina Mae Ave
Tinker Diagonal St
12th St
Chetwood Dr
SE 85th St
Delmar Rd
SE 53rd St
S Bodine Dr
13th St
S Townsend Pl
Interpace St
SE 69th St
SE 51st St
SE 57th St
Twining Dr
Cherry Hill Ln
Eagle Dr
SE 70th St
SE 67th St
Camille Ave
Brookdale Dr
Koelsch Dr
S Scott St
Longridge Rd
Angela Dr
SE 67th St
Greenbrier Ter
SE 21st St
SE 51st St
Woodedge Dr
Creekwood Ter
Center Dr
S High Ave
Will Rogers Rd
NE 5th St
SE 16th St
Oakcliff Dr
S Shallow Brook Dr
S Eckroat St
SE 3rd St
N Meadowood Dr
del Rancho Rd
Meadowview Dr
Sunny Pointe Ln
Dentwood Ter
SE 86th St
SE 25th St
SE 26th St
Neighbors Ln
SE 38th St
SE 55th St
Elm Dr
SE 11th St
S I- 35 Svc Rd
SE 39th St
Creekwood Dr
Liberty Pkwy
Crooked Oak Dr
Jones Blvd
SE 7th St
SE 41s t St
SE 5th St
NE 3rd St
SE 79th St
NE 9th St
Hunter Dr
Cinderella Dr
Windwood Dr
Mickey Rd
Corbett Dr
NE 10th St
SE 82nd Pl
Arnold St
Lawn Dr
Pearl Way
Keith Dr
Veterans Ln
Prairie Ln
Thomas Dr
E Fairview St
Carter Dr
Judy Dr
SE 37th St
SE 33rd St
SE 31st St
SE 35th St
S Magnolia Ave
Republic Dr
East Ave
S Holiday Ave
S Jordan Ave
S Dimple Ave
Hudiburg Dr
Prairie Ridge Rd
Lazy Ln
SE 20th St
Shalimar Dr
Lottie Ave N Lottie Ave
Gaines St
S Mable Ave
SE 74th St
N Kelley Ave
SE 54th St
N Sunnylane Rd
NE 6th St
N Bryant Ave
S Mansfield St Mansfield Ave
S Foster Rd
NE 8th St
S Genessee Ave
Cherry Ln
SE 23rd St
Carverdale Dr
S Stonewall Ave
S Fairmont AveS Skyline Dr
del Aire Dr
Woodbend Dr
SE 31st St
SE 19th St
Mathews Pl
SE 66th St
Parker Dr
SE 24th St
SE 34th St
S Cox Ave
S Irving St
SE 8th St
Doolittle Ave
Clendon Way
Lunow Dr
SE 82nd St
SE 12th St
McNarney Ave
SE 28th St
Leonhardt Dr
SE 22nd St
NE 7th St
S Madera Blvd
SE 36th St
S Missouri Ave
Mackelman Dr
Trosper Dr
del View Dr
Overland Dr
S Hattie Ave
SE 22nd St
E Reno Ave
Epperly Dr
E I- 240 Sv c Rd
SE 74th St
S Sooner Rd
I- 240 Svc Rd
Lariet Ln
S Sunnylane Rd
del Rd
SE 25th St
Howard Dr
Hisel Rd
S Wofford Rd
N Vickie Dr
Foster Rd
SE 27th St
N Sooner Rd
Mallard Dr
Crossroads Mall Dr
Crossroads Blvd
N Martin Luther King Ave
Vickie Dr
SE 40th St
I- 40 Svc Rd
S Prospect Ave
Tinker Diagonal
SE Grand Blvd
15th St SE 15th St
I- 40 Svc Rd
E I- 240 Svc Rd
E Grand Blvd
SE 15th St
N Nebraska Ave
NE 4th St
S High Ave
NE 10th St
E Reno Ave
SE 89th St
SE 59th St
SE 29th St
SE 44th St
Del City
House District 94
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Road
Service Drive
Private Road
( ( Bike Path
!! 2 - 5,000
!! 5,001 - 10,000
!! 10,001 - 25,000
!! 25,001 - 50,000
!! 50,001 - 579,999
House Districts
Oklahoma House GIS Office: June, 2011
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
Creativity Through Collaboration: From Memes To Videogames
from the this-is-a-cool-story,-bro dept
Yes, that's the trailer for a new video game to be released shortly, and it was inspired almost entirely by an online group and the resulting internet meme the group produced. Included amongst this list of video games resulting from internet memes, the entire premise of the game began with what was essentially a bitch-session online over how awful shooter game sequels are.
It all started with a joke on a forum. One NeoGAF forum user, annoyed with how lazy shooters had become, complained that he was tired of games like 'Dudebro 2: It's Straight-Up Dawg Time.' It grew from there.
The phrase became a byline for tired, me-too games, but it was so absurd that it got people thinking. Soon, it had mock cover art and a storyline. Before long, a team of fans were working on an entire game, a 2D platformer, and it's on the way soon. It even stars Jon St. John, the actor famous for voicing Duke Nukem.Apparently, somehow, the entire premise for what looks like a hysterical game was generated spontaneously online in a collaborative format, as was the trailer, cover art, and storyline. Now, it may quickly be pointed out by some that the end product of this creativity is subject to copyright by default, but that misses the point entirely. This is simply another example of how creation occurs and how sharing and exchanging ideas freely can produce an interesting project as well as a great deal of fun. As collaboration of this nature expands due to the ability of people to connect on the internet, the overall need to lock up ideas relative to creative output is going to weaken. There may still be some "artists" who create simply for monetary gain, but their ranks are lessening.


text:
By Russ Ouellette
When the Hoyo de Tradicion first arrived in our store a couple of years ago, or thereabouts, I had to do a double-take because the band, which is much different than the one we're familiar with, looks a lot like the Cuban version. That intrigued me enough to try it, and I remember being happily surprised, but for some reason I didn't revisit the cigar for quite some time.
When I was asked to review the Epicure, I recalled that I enjoyed the cigar and was eager to give it another try. The 5.75 x 45 box-pressed vitola has a nice rusty-colored Honduran Rosado wrapper with a nice sheen and fine veins. The pre-light aroma is the fairly typical barnyard scent, but there's a slightly sweet spiciness in the aroma, and it shows up again in the pre-light draw, along with toast and a hint of dark chocolate.
This series has some unique aspects, such as the reddish-hued wrapper, the use of Connecticut-grown Habano for a binder and the addition of Nicaraguan filler from the volcanic island, Ometepe. I like products that take a fresh approach, because there's almost always going to be a surprise, and this cigar is no exception.


text:
It is an honor and privilege to be entrusted with the care of the deceased of our area. Our founding fathers had a strong vision. They wanted to create a peaceful and serene environment to ease you through your sad and troubled times and help you say good-bye to your loved ones in a quiet and friendly atmosphere.
Our cemetery is dedicated to our deceased and we offer you the promise of dignity and respect in the care of your loved one as well as in serving you and your family.
Download the free Pine Grove app to navigate the cemetery and view tours:
Members of the Following:
Copyright © 2019 Pine Grove Cemetery All rights reserved.
Web Design and hosting by webCemeteries.com


text:
WEST WINDSOR, N.J. – MIT alums Skip Dise (CE '03) and Stephen Young (ME '09) will represent the United States at the 2010 World Rowing Championships which will be held Oct. 31-Nov. 7 in Lake Karapiro, New Zealand as announced by USRowing. The Engineers will occupy both ends of this year's lightweight eight with Young sitting in the coxswain seat and Dise rowing bow seat. Dise returns to international competition after earning a silver medal in the lightweight men's eight at the 2009 World Rowing Championships in Poznan, Poland. This will mark Young's first year as a member of the USRowing National Team.
Dise, former MIT lightweight men's captain and most inspirational oarsman, began his rowing career at MIT. By his junior season, he was the stroke of the lightweight varsity eight. Prior to his selection to the national team, Dise rowed for the Riverside Boat Club High Performance Group where he earned several gold medals in the men's lightweight eight and progressed to the semifinals at the Henley Royal Regatta in the intermediate quadruple sculls (Prince of Wales Cup). Recently, Dise has trained with the Pocock Training Center, the Oklahoma City High Performance Center, and the USRowing Training Center in Princeton.
Young was a top boat coxswain all four years at MIT, after he began coxing at H.B. Plant High School in Tampa, Fla. in 2001. Young steered the heavyweight men's squad to its best season in recent history during his senior year, including a win over former Olympic gold medalist and current Great Britain National Team member, Greg Searle, in the first round of the intermediate men's eight (Ladies' Challenge Plate) at the 2009 Henley Royal Regatta. Young spent the past year in Philadelphia coxing the elite men for the Penn Athletic Club Rowing Association, earning multiple wins in both the open and championship men's eights.
Dise and Young were both invited to the USRowing lightweight eight selection camp held at the Oklahoma City High Performance Center this past July through August. At the conclusion of the camp, they were both selected to race in the US entry at the Canadian Henley Regatta, where they defeated the Canadian lightweight contingents in the championship eight event. This year the American squad seeks to reclaim gold from the Italians and will also face a strong Australian crew coached by former U.S. National Team and Princeton Heavyweight coach, Curtis Jordan.
Dise and Young will be joined by four returning members of last year's silver medal crew. Dise, along with Matt Muffelman (Dartmouth '03), Jimmy Sopko (Navy '05), Matt Kochem (Cornell '08), and Kenny McMahon (Wisconsin '08) return to the lightweight eight and seek gold in New Zealand. Young joins Julian Bowling (Navy '10), Michael Kerrigan (Navy '10), and Bob Duff (Columbia '10) as first-time members of the USRowing lightweight eight.
Young also qualified in the heavyweight men's coxed pair, to earn a seat in two of the three coxed events at the World Rowing Championships. After coming in second in the first final of the USRowing Senior World Championship Trials by 2.5 seconds, Young's crew of Nareg Guregian (Cal '10) and Justin Stangel (Syracuse '07) strung together two outstanding performances. The last two finals both resulted in come-from-behind victories in which the winner was decided by no more than three feet. The coxed pair looks to defend a gold medal performance from last year's world championships.
Both the lightweight eight and the heavyweight coxed pair are self-funded events; to find out more and to support Skip and Stephen, visit www.firstgiving.com/2010LM8 and www.firstgiving.com/2010M2with.


text:
Difference between revisions of "Baku"
Revision as of 10:56, 25 April 2012
Baku is the capital of Azerbaijan.
Baku, also known as Baky or Bakı, is the largest city in the Caucasus and the capital of Azerbaijan. Baku is on the coast of the Caspian Sea on the southern tip of the Absheron Peninsula. There are three major divisions in Baku: İçəri Şəhər (the ancient city), the Soviet built city, and the newest part of the city. The population as of January 2003 was 2,074,300.
A curious fact about Baku is that its average year-round temperature (14.2°C/57.6°F)) matches the average temperature of the entire landmass of the earth to within a tenth of degree. Summers are hot and humid, winters cool, wet and breezy. However, seasonal temperature excursions are less than in many continental regions at this latitude (about 40 degrees north) owing to the presence of the Caspian Sea.
Get in
By plane
Heydar Aliyev International Airport [36] (IATA: GYD) is situated 25 km (15 mi) from Baku city center. It is served by major airlines including Aeroflot, Austrian Airlines, BMI, Turkish Airlines, Lufthansa and Qatar Airways, and a whole host of smaller airlines. The least expensive way to get between Baku and Europe is via Aeroflot, with inexpensive flights to/from Moscow daily. Air Baltic also offers flights with good prices from/via Riga.
Bus N16 runs between the airport and Samed Vurgun Park, in the heart of Baku. The trip costs 1AZN and takes over an hour.
Minibus 135 runs between the airport traffic circle (15-min walk from the airport) and the 28 May Metro Station. The journey takes an hour and costs 0.40AZN.
Getting a smooth ride from the airport to town can be a hassle. The lowest price you can get for a taxi to the center should be around 15 Manat (old Lada, unmarked taxi). Be aware that there is one single taxi company that is allowed to officially do business at the airport. This monopoly drives up the price to nearly 50 Manat and many times it leaves you with no other options, especially when arriving at late hours. Police occasionally force out all cab drivers trying to do business on the fringes of the airport, leaving you stuck with a high fare. Taxis don't have meters so you must negotiate in advance. If you are not finding a reasonable price, go out of the airport, past the taxi stand, and ask the cabbies in the far end of the parking lot. Be cautious since the majority of Baku cabs are unmarked. Don't let the cab driver renegotiate the price with you. It is a common trick to ask for much more on arrival to your destination. You are not obligated to pay what they demand.
For 5 Manat you can take a cab from the airport to Metro Azizbeyov. From there it's four to six stations to the city center - but only from 6AM until midnight.
By train
Overnight trains are avalible from Russia and Ukraine on a regular basis. Moscow (60 h) has departures three times a week, there is also a once-weekly train leaving Saint Petersburg (70 h) on Sundays. Other cities with less frequent connections include Novosibirsk (80 h) and Yekaterinburg (75 h). Kiev (68 h) has a service leaving every Saturday, with carriges added from several other cities. Also, on some occasions there is a direct train from the Belarusian city of Brest (81 h) which also stops in Minsk (76 h). However, it is important to note that the border between Russia and Azerbaijan is closed for non-CIS nationals for the forseeable future. So unless you're a resident of a former Soviet country then this journey is impossible.
Now, there are still ways of getting here by train for a westerner. There is an overnight sleeper from Tbilisi in neighboring Georgia leaving three times a week. Journey times is 17 hours. The train makes stop-overs in Lankaran, Sheki, Xachmaz and Ganja. A journey in second class from Tbilisi will set you back 58 laris.
Domestic trains are very cheap, most journeys cost less then 3AZN which makes it cheaper then staying in an hostel.
By bus
Buses run between Baku and Lankaran (departs: 11:50AM, 3PM, 4PM, 5PM), Sheki (hourly, 4AZN, 7-hr trip). International buses also operate from destinations in Iran, Turkey and from Tbilisi. A common rule of thumb for bus rates in Azerbaijan seems to be about 1AZN per hour ride. Example: Agstafa is about 7 or 8 hours away from Baku. About 8AZN.
By minibus
Minbuses operate between Baku and Sheki (6 hr), Lankaran (5 hr), Xachmaz (3 hr), Saatli (5 hr), and Imishli (4 hr).
By ferry
The phone number of the sea terminal (Daniz Vagzal) is 994 12 447 7314.
Ferries operate between Baku and Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, (Irregularly, approximately every 7-10 days), and Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan (steerage bed, US$50, 2-day trip, bring food).
Make sure you have appropriate visas before embarking, if necessary.
Get around
By car
By taxiLondon taxi cabs have been recently introduced in Baku, and travel fees are 0.70AZN per km.A taxi costs 4-10AZN for trips within the center of Baku.
By bike
Baku is a great town to get around in by bicycle. Except for the up-town, the city, including old town (Ichari Shahar) and down-town is fairly flat, and though there are some streets that are dangerous to ride, there is almost always a safe, fast route to your destination.
While there are no separate bike lanes on the streets, and cars and cyclists often share narrow streets of Baku, the city is very bike-friendly. Be very careful watch out for other cyclists. While cycling on the street, always keep closer to foot-walk side of the street, and show other traffic where you are going (e.g., by holding out your hand) in order avoid accidents and smoothen the traffic flow.
A pleasant way to cover a lot of ground is to rent a bicycle. Make sure to get a good lock (or two), and to use it. If you are looking for a city (road), mountain or trekking bicycle, then there is a bicycle rental shop at the city centre called MyBike (address: Asef Zeynalli Street, Ichari Shahar). If you want to know the best routes, you should get a copy of the beautifully designed Baku my Bike plan, which is available at all bike rental points of MyBike, or by calling and ordering through: (+99450 5181800). Bike costs about 10-20AZN per day (approximately, AZN 1 = €1, as of 2012).
A passport or identity card must be shown and a refundable deposit is required. While this service is quite convenient, be sure to bring ID or passport and contact information, including hotel phone number, to speed up the paperwork.
By bus/minibus
Buses and minibuses cost 0.20AZN per person and can take you to almost any place within Baku. Destinations are usually posted on the front and the right side of the bus.
By metro
The metro goes many places throughout Baku and it costs only 0.20AZN. It is the least expensive way to get around Baku besides walking. Ask a cashier or attendant. You must obtain a Bakı Metropiliten Kart (2AZN refundable deposit) and load it like a normal metro pass. Alternatively, you can use a Azerbaycan Sosial Kartı like the ones on some Azerbaijani ATM cards. The metro workers will be more than happy to help if spoken to in either Azeri or Russian, and some may understand English.
Be careful when transferring trains at the transfer stations (28 May and Jafar Jabbarli) as the signage is not easy to spot.
There have been reports of people being arrested while taking photographs of the metro station.
By train
The Baku electric train runs through several parts of Baku and the surrounding area including Sumqait. 1AZN.
By foot
It is possible to get around Fountain Square, the Boulevard, and the old city by foot, but the entire city cannot be covered on foot.
English and Russian are spoken in many places throughout Baku, but it wise to still either bring an Azeri phrase book and/or brush up on your Azeri/Turkish/Russian before arriving. However, about 80% of population at least understands Russian, and about half the people under the age of 35 will speak at least a little English.
English is well catered for in most shops, restaurants and bars as a result of 15+ years of expats from the oil industry. Very easy to make yourself understood with little local language skills.
See also:
Cultural sites
Old Town (Icheri Sheher)
There are a number of interesting sites within Baku's walled fortress, the Old City (a UNESCO World Heritage site), which can all be seen on foot in one day:
Absheron Peninsula
Outside the city, on the Absheron Peninsula, there are several interesting sites that are easy to reach via taxi or public transportation. Moreover, the scenery along your route is itself a fascinatingly ugly sight to be seen, a desert wasteland with white salt flats and natural oil pools seeping up to the surface.
Museums and galleries
Other sites
There are a couple of beaches including Shikhov Beach, but they are polluted by sewage and industrial waste. Outside the city, however, there are a few very nice sandy beaches on the Caspian. In particular Bilgəh and Amburan beaches, on the north coast of the Absheron Peninsula are great spots to cool off from heat.
There are a great deal of restaurants in Baku.
Former USSR
Tea Houses (Çayxanalar)
There are many outdoor tea houses (çayxanalar) that serve tea and sweets to people in their own individual nooks. Going to them can be a great way to get a sense of the local culture. If you are adventurous, try challenging a local Bakuvian to a game of backgammon (nard) or dominoes.
There is a good selection of cafés dispersed throughout Baku. Expect to pay Western prices for your coffee.
Bars and pubs
Although tea houses (çay xanalar) (found throughout Azerbaijan) serve local beer (piva) - draft at 50 qapick/glass or bottles at 70 qapick/bottle or vodka (araq) at 2AZN/bottle, for anything exotic (e.g. tequila, gin, or rum), you will have to go to a normal bar or hotel and pay Western prices there.
Internet cafes in Azerbaijan are called "internet klubs" and they are found throughout Baku. Some coffee houses provide wireless internet, but they are quite rare in Baku. Recently public wi-fi service was implented the central areas. One "klub" with fast internet downtown is VIP, U.Bunyadzade 3. They also have a lot of games you can play.
Post office
Azerbaijan Post locations are dispersed throughout Baku. Mailing an international letter generally costs 0.8AZN.
As Azal seems to be in a permanent state of flux as to where their offices are located, pop into a travel agent and ask about tickets very carefully before buying anything. In some cases, like Naxcevan or last-minute flights, you WILL ABSOLUTELY have to go this every-moving central office during a few random opening times in order to get your tickets processed. One travel agent who can guide you buy phone is reachable at +994 55 4201220 or +99412 5551320 or 5981619.
Stay safe
Baku is considered a safe city, nevertheless common sense is useful as in all other big cities. Homeless people do not harass or attack people and are very safe to be around. The biggest problem in Baku is driving. Many drivers do not obey rules and speed.
Emergency contact numbers
You must speak in Azeri, Turkish or Russian to communicate your needs. It would be a good idea to memorize key phrases before coming to Azerbaijan - see the Talk section for phrasebooks.
Safety tips
Travel outside the city only during the day time, unless taking a night train. The roads can be treacherous at night due to unseen potholes and dimly lit cars. Most areas near the downtown are mostly safe, but women (especially foreign women) shouldn't travel at night, unless they have an male escort.
Get out


text: Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Victoria Center Krackow Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today! Job Discussion Forums"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!" FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in Victoria Center Krackow Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Poland View previous topic :: View next topic Author Message technohaterJoined: 13 Jan 2012Posts: 30 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: Victoria Center Krackow Hi everyone, Have an interview with this school in a couple of days. Wondering if anyone has worked for them. Any info would be of great help. Cheers Back to top hrvatskiJoined: 16 Nov 2008Posts: 270 Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:55 am Post subject: Krakow Cracow Never heard of them. Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Poland All times are GMT Page 1 of 1 Jump to: Select a forum Where to Begin----------------General DiscussionNewbie ForumCurrent Events ForumTechnology ForumOnline Teaching Forum Africa Forums----------------General Africa Forum Asia Forums----------------CambodiaChina (Job-related Posts Only)China (Off-Topic)Hong KongIndiaIndonesiaJapanMalaysiaPhilippinesSingaporeTaiwanThailandGeneral Asia ForumVietnam Caribbean Forums----------------General Caribbean Forum Europe Forums----------------Czech RepublicFranceGermanyGreeceItalyMacedonia and the BalkansPolandRomaniaRussia & C.I.S.SpainTurkeyUkraineUnited KingdomGeneral Europe Forum Latin America Forums----------------ArgentinaBrazilChileColombiaCosta RicaMexicoMexico (off-topic)PeruGeneral Latin America Forum The Middle East Forums----------------BahrainEgyptIsraelKuwaitOmanQatarSaudi ArabiaUnited Arab EmiratesGeneral Middle East Forum North America Forums----------------General North America Forum Oceania----------------Australia/New Zealand You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group Teaching Jobs in China


text:
Hello everyone! After seeing a lot of Standoff 2 Hack videos which are promising to give Standoff 2 Hack Gold and Gold I have decided to create
my own Standoff 2 Hack 2018 version. In this Hack I will be showing you how to Hack Standoff 2 in 2018 and how to get unlimited Standoff 2 Gold and Gold.


text:
|StrainInfo projects
|Log in
MCL is a data exchange standard for microbiological information. In short, MCL defines terms which can be used to reference and describe microorganisms. It is designed to form a simple and generic framework leveraging the electronical exchange of information about microorganisms. MCL is loosely coupled from its actual representation technologies and is currently used to structure XML and RDF files (see examples).
An introduction to the background of the standard and its use cases can be found in:
Verslyppe, B., Kottmann, R., De Smet, W., De Baets, B., De Vos, P., and Dawyndt, P. (2010). Microbiological Common Language (MCL): a standard for electronic information exchange in the Microbial Commons. Research in Microbiology 161(6), 439-445. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2010.02.005
Although the standard was set up by StrainInfo, it is intended as a common ground for the whole microbiological community. Therefore, it is open to community feedback and extension. We are glad to receive your remarks or suggestions.
Contact: email@example.com or the StrainInfo team (see contact)
This is a simple example of the MCL represenation of the E. coli type strain (XML file):
<mcl:Strain xmlns:mcl="http://www.straininfo.net/ns/mcl/2.0/">
<mcl:strainNumber>ATCC 11775</mcl:strainNumber>
<mcl:strainNumber>CIP 54.8</mcl:strainNumber>
<mcl:strainNumber>DSM 30083</mcl:strainNumber>
<mcl:speciesName>Escherichia coli</mcl:speciesName>
<mcl:typeStrainOf>Escherichia coli</mcl:typeStrainOf>
Strain passports are also available in MCL format. The XML file corresponding with a strain passport can be downloaded by appending ".xml" to the strain passport URL. For example, the MCL file for the Bacillus smithii type strain can be found at http://www.straininfo.net/strains/29804.xml.
Advanced search results can also be represented in MCL format (see exports overview)
Another example can be found in the description of the StrainInfo catalog schema.
The authorative definition of all terms in MCL can be found in the MCL reference.
Schemas define the way MCL files need to be formatted and allow automatic validation of MCL files. A specific XML schema is available for each important distinct use case. RDF users can use the generic RDF schema.