Misplaced Pages

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
#493506

84-476: The International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the field of microbial systematics that was established in 1951. Its scope covers the taxonomy , nomenclature , identification, characterisation, culture preservation, phylogeny , evolution , and biodiversity of all microorganisms , including prokaryotes , yeasts and yeast-like organisms, protozoa and algae . The journal

168-529: A monograph or in the proceedings of an academic conference . If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review. Medical peer review may be distinguished in four classifications: Additionally, "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

252-481: A certain threshold, and effective peer review requires a certain level of expertise. For non-professional writers, peer review feedback may be overlooked, thereby affecting its effectiveness. Elizabeth Ellis Miller, Cameron Mozafari, Justin Lohr and Jessica Enoch state, "While peer review is an integral part of writing classrooms, students often struggle to effectively engage in it." The authors illustrate some reasons for

336-407: A clonotype. In zoological nomenclature , the type of a species or subspecies is a specimen or series of specimens. The type of a genus or subgenus is a species. The type of a suprageneric taxon (e.g., family, etc.) is a genus. Names higher than superfamily rank do not have types. A "name-bearing type" is a specimen or image that "provides the objective standard of reference whereby the application of

420-447: A compilation of validated new names (the validation list ) that have been previously published in other scientific journals or books. Since August 2002, publications relating to new bacterial taxa and validation of publication elsewhere have both required type strains to have been deposited at two recognised public collections in different countries. As of 2007, the journal has officially validated around 6500 species and 1500 genera. It

504-559: A detailed published description (for example a species description ) and on the provision of type material, which is usually available to scientists for examination in a major museum research collection, or similar institution. According to a precise set of rules laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN),

588-414: A diagnosis (typically, a discussion of similarities to and differences from closely related species), and an indication of where the type specimen or specimens are deposited for examination. The geographical location where a type specimen was originally found is known as its type locality . In the case of parasites, the term type host (or symbiotype) is used to indicate the host organism from which

672-557: A fundamental process in academic and professional writing, serving as a systematic means to ensure the quality, effectiveness, and credibility of scholarly work. However, despite its widespread use, it is one of the most scattered, inconsistent, and ambiguous practices associated with writing instruction. Many scholars questioning its effectiveness and specific methodologies. Critics of peer review in classrooms express concerns about its ineffectiveness due to students' lack of practice in giving constructive criticism or their limited expertise in

756-415: A longitudinal study comparing two groups of students (one majoring in writing and one not) to explore students' perceptions of authority. This research, involving extensive analysis of student texts, concludes that students majoring in non-writing fields tend to undervalue mandatory peer review in class, while those majoring in writing value classmates' comments more. This reflects that peer review feedback has

840-410: A lot of small plants), dead and kept safe, "curated", in a herbarium (or the equivalent for fungi). Examples of where an illustration may serve as a type include: A type does not determine the circumscription of the taxon. For example, the common dandelion is a controversial taxon: some botanists consider it to consist of over a hundred species, and others regard it as a single species. The type of

924-501: A means of critiquing each other's work, peer review is often framed as a way to build connection between students and help develop writers' identity. While widely used in English and composition classrooms, peer review has gained popularity in other disciplines that require writing as part of the curriculum including the social and natural sciences . Peer review in classrooms helps students become more invested in their work, and

SECTION 10

#1732776024494

1008-485: A new generic name; the old generic name passes into synonymy and is abandoned unless there is a pressing need to make an exception (decided case-by-case, via petition to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). A type genus is a genus from which the name of a family or subfamily is formed. As with type species, the type genus is not necessarily the most representative but is usually

1092-546: A part of it that has been stolen, or improperly relocated. Type illustrations have also been used by zoologists, as in the case of the Réunion parakeet , which is known only from historical illustrations and descriptions. Recently, some species have been described where the type specimen was released alive back into the wild, such as the Bulo Burti boubou (a bushshrike ), described as Laniarius liberatus , in which

1176-403: A passing remark on Linnaeus's contributions, "Linnaeus himself, must stand as the type of his Homo sapiens. He justified his choice by noting that the specimen that Linnaeus, who wrote his own autobiography five times, had most studied was probably himself. This sufficiently and correctly designated Linnaeus to be the lectotype for Homo sapiens . It has also been suggested that Edward Cope

1260-405: A scientific name to a specific operational taxonomic unit . Type specimens are theoretically even allowed to be aberrant or deformed individuals or color variations, though this is rarely chosen to be the case, as it makes it hard to determine to which population the individual belonged. The usage of the term type is somewhat complicated by slightly different uses in botany and zoology . In

1344-505: A single international body, now named the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP), was established to oversee all aspects of prokaryotic nomenclature. Work began in 1936 on drafting a Code of Bacteriological Nomenclature , the first version of which was approved in 1947. In 1950, at the 5th International Congress for Microbiology, a journal was established to disseminate the committee's conclusions to

1428-453: A single type specimen, a holotype, was often not designated. Also, types were not always carefully preserved, and intervening events such as wars and fires have resulted in the destruction of the original type material. The validity of a species name often rests upon the availability of original type specimens; or, if the type cannot be found, or one has never existed, upon the clarity of the description. The ICZN has existed only since 1961 when

1512-541: A specimen, a culture, an illustration , or (under the bacteriological code) a description. Some codes consider a subordinate taxon to be the type, but under the botanical code, the type is always a specimen or illustration. For example, in the research collection of the Natural History Museum in London, there is a bird specimen numbered 1886.6.24.20. This is a specimen of a kind of bird commonly known as

1596-448: A time and given an amount of time to present the topic that they have researched. Each speaker may or may not talk about the same topic but each speaker has something to gain or lose which can foster a competitive atmosphere. This approach allows speakers to present in a more personal tone while trying to appeal to the audience while explaining their topic. Peer seminars may be somewhat similar to what conference speakers do, however, there

1680-443: Is a specimen later selected to serve as the single type specimen for species originally described from a set of syntypes . In zoology, a lectotype is a kind of name-bearing type . When a species was originally described on the basis of a name-bearing type consisting of multiple specimens, one of those may be designated as the lectotype. Having a single name-bearing type reduces the potential for confusion, especially considering that it

1764-525: Is a type of engineering review. Technical peer reviews are a well defined review process for finding and fixing defects, conducted by a team of peers with assigned roles. Technical peer reviews are carried out by peers representing areas of life cycle affected by material being reviewed (usually limited to 6 or fewer people). Technical peer reviews are held within development phases, between milestone reviews, on completed products or completed portions of products. The European Union has been using peer review in

SECTION 20

#1732776024494

1848-462: Is any additional specimen from among a set of syntypes after a lectotype has been designated from among them. These are not name-bearing types. A special case in Protistans where the type consists of two or more specimens of "directly related individuals" within a preparation medium such as a blood smear. The terms parahapantotype and lectohapantotype refer to type preparations additional to

1932-425: Is clearly designated in the original description, this specimen is known as the holotype of that species. The holotype is typically placed in a major museum, or similar well-known public collection, so that it is freely available for later examination by other biologists. When the original description designated a holotype, there may be additional specimens that the author designates as additional representatives of

2016-479: Is common in the field of health care, where it is usually called clinical peer review . Further, since peer review activity is commonly segmented by clinical discipline, there is also physician peer review, nursing peer review, dentistry peer review, etc. Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting, law, engineering (e.g., software peer review , technical peer review ), aviation, and even forest fire management. Peer review

2100-553: Is currently published monthly by the Microbiology Society . An official publication of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) and International Union of Microbiological Societies (Bacteriology and Applied Microbiology Division), the journal is the single official international forum for the publication of new species names for prokaryotes. In addition to research papers,

2184-612: Is hardly anything else so difficult." Between 1971 and the end of 1997, the journal was published by the American Society for Microbiology . Publication moved to the United Kingdom in 1998, the journal being taken over by the Society for General Microbiology , in conjunction with Cambridge University Press . The title was changed to International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology in 2000, to reflect

2268-594: Is incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code Section 57004. Peer review, or student peer assessment, is the method by which editors and writers work together in hopes of helping the author establish and further flesh out and develop their own writing. Peer review is widely used in secondary and post-secondary education as part of the writing process. This collaborative learning tool involves groups of students reviewing each other's work and providing feedback and suggestions for revision. Rather than

2352-551: Is more time to present their points, and speakers can be interrupted by audience members to provide questions and feedback upon the topic or how well the speaker did in presenting their topic. Professional peer review focuses on the performance of professionals, with a view to improving quality, upholding standards, or providing certification. Peer review in writing is a pivotal component among various peer review mechanisms, often spearheaded by educators and involving student participation, particularly in academic settings. It constitutes

2436-463: Is no requirement for a "typical" individual to be used. Genera and families , particularly those established by early taxonomists, tend to be named after species that are more "typical" for them, but here too this is not always the case and due to changes in systematics cannot be. Hence, the term name-bearing type or onomatophore is sometimes used, to denote the fact that biological types do not define "typical" individuals or taxa , but rather fix

2520-454: Is not uncommon for a series of syntypes to contain specimens of more than one species. Formally, Carl Linnaeus is the lectotype for Homo sapiens , designated in 1959. He published the first book considered to be part of taxonomical nomenclature, the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, which included the first description of Homo sapiens and determined all valid syntypes for the species. Crucially, in 1959, Professor William Stearne wrote in

2604-411: Is one of many species that are based on illustrations by Albertus Seba (1734). An ergatotype is a specimen selected to represent a worker member in hymenopterans which have polymorphic castes. A hypotype is a specimen whose details have previously been published that is used in a supplementary figure or description of the species. The term " kleptotype " informally refers to a type specimen or

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology - Misplaced Pages Continue

2688-430: Is part of scientific nomenclature and alpha taxonomy . When identifying material, a scientist attempts to apply a taxon name to a specimen or group of specimens based on their understanding of the relevant taxa, based on (at least) having read the type description(s), preferably also based on an examination of all the type material of all of the relevant taxa. If there is more than one named type that all appear to be

2772-413: Is still a method used in classrooms to help students young and old learn how to revise. With evolving and changing technology, peer review will develop as well. New tools could help alter the process of peer review. Peer seminar is a method that involves a speaker that presents ideas to an audience that also acts as a "contest". To further elaborate, there are multiple speakers that are called out one at

2856-432: Is that peer review is not just about improving writing but about helping authors achieve their writing vision." Feedback from the majority of non-professional writers during peer review sessions often tends to be superficial, such as simple grammar corrections and questions. This precisely reflects the implication in the conclusion that the focus is only on improving writing skills. Meaningful peer review involves understanding

2940-492: Is the lectotype for Homo sapiens , based on the 1994 reporting by Louie Psihoyos of an unpublished proposal by Bob Bakker to do so. However, this designation is invalid both because Edward Cope was not one of the specimens described in Systema Naturae 10th Ed., and therefore not being a syntype is not eligible, and because Stearne's designation in 1959 has seniority and invalidates future designations. A paralectotype

3024-507: Is the only U.S. state to mandate scientific peer review. In 1997, the Governor of California 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

3108-450: Is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field. Peer review is widely used for helping the academic publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief , the editorial board or the program committee ) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal ,

3192-399: 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. Scholarly peer review or academic peer review (also known as refereeing)

3276-692: The PhyloCode , type-based definitions are replaced by phylogenetic definitions . In some older taxonomic works the word "type" has sometimes been used differently. The meaning was similar in the first Laws of Botanical Nomenclature , but has a meaning closer to the term taxon in some other works: Ce seul caractère permet de distinguer ce type de toutes les autres espèces de la section. ... Après avoir étudié ces diverses formes, j'en arrivai à les considérer comme appartenant à un seul et même type spécifique. Translation: This single character permits [one to] distinguish this type from all other species of

3360-419: The scientific name of that organism is formally associated. In other words, a type is an example that serves to anchor or centralizes the defining features of that particular taxon . In older usage (pre-1900 in botany), a type was a taxon rather than a specimen. A taxon is a scientifically named grouping of organisms with other like organisms, a set that includes some organisms and excludes others, based on

3444-454: The spotted harrier , which currently bears the scientific name Circus assimilis . This particular specimen is the holotype for that species; the name Circus assimilis refers, by definition, to the species of that particular specimen. That species was named and described by Jardine and Selby in 1828, and the holotype was placed in the museum collection so that other scientists might refer to it as necessary. At least for type specimens there

International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology - Misplaced Pages Continue

3528-467: The "Open Method of Co-ordination" of policies in the fields of active labour market policy since 1999. In 2004, a program of peer reviews started in social inclusion . 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

3612-871: The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. “That’s boring.” This is also particularly evident in university classrooms, where the most common source of writing feedback during student years often comes from teachers, whose comments are often highly valued. Students may become influenced to provide research in line with the professor’s viewpoints, because of the teacher’s position of high authority. The effectiveness of feedback largely stems from its high authority. Benjamin Keating, in his article "A Good Development Thing: A Longitudinal Analysis of Peer Review and Authority in Undergraduate Writing," conducted

3696-429: The author's writing intent, posing valuable questions and perspectives, and guiding the author to achieve their writing goals. Magda Tigchelaar compares peer review with self-assessment through an experiment that divided students into three groups: self-assessment, peer review, and no review. Across four writing projects, she observed changes in each group, with surprisingly results showing significant improvement only in

3780-477: The broadened focus of the journal. A major redesign brought the journal into line with the three other society journals in 2003, and at the same date the printer/typesetter changed to the Charlesworth Group. The frequency increased to monthly in 2006. The journal publishes research papers establishing novel prokaryotic names, which are summarized in a notification list. Each monthly issue also contains

3864-431: The classroom environment at large. Understanding how their work is read by a diverse readership before it is graded by the teacher may also help students clarify ideas and understand how to persuasively reach different audience members via their writing. It also gives students professional experience that they might draw on later when asked to review the work of a colleague prior to publication. The process can also bolster

3948-426: The confidence of students on both sides of the process. It has been found that students are more positive than negative when reviewing their classmates' writing. Peer review can help students not get discouraged but rather feel determined to improve their writing. Critics of peer review in classrooms say that it can be ineffective due to students' lack of practice giving constructive criticism, or lack of expertise in

4032-471: The essential characteristics of the genus to which it belongs, but this is subjective and, ultimately, technically irrelevant, as it is not a requirement of the Code. If the type species proves, upon closer examination, to belong to a pre-existing genus (a common occurrence), then all of the constituent species must be either moved into the pre-existing genus or disassociated from the original type species and given

4116-531: The feedback with either positive or negative attitudes towards the text, resulting in selective or biased feedback and review, further impacting their ability to objectively evaluate the article. It implies that subjective emotions may also affect the effectiveness of peer review feedback. Pamela Bedore and Brian O’Sullivan also hold a skeptical view of peer review in most writing contexts. The authors conclude, based on comparing different forms of peer review after systematic training at two universities, that "the crux

4200-445: The field or profession in which the activity occurs, e.g., medical peer review . It can also be used as a teaching tool to help students improve writing assignments. Henry Oldenburg (1619–1677) was a German-born British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of modern scientific peer review. It developed over the following centuries with, for example, the journal Nature making it standard practice in 1973. The term "peer review"

4284-432: The first edition of the Code was published. The ICZN does not always demand a type specimen for the historical validity of a species, and many "type-less" species do exist. The current edition of the Code, Article 75.3, prohibits the designation of a neotype unless there is "an exceptional need" for "clarifying the taxonomic status" of a species (Article 75.2). There are many other permutations and variations on terms using

SECTION 50

#1732776024494

4368-474: The hapantotype and designated by the describing author. As with other type designations the use of the prefix "Neo-", such as Neohapantotype , is employed when a replacement for the original hapantotype is designated, or when an original description did not include a designated type specimen. An illustration on which a new species or subspecies was based. For instance, the Burmese python, Python bivittatus ,

4452-627: The inefficiency of peer review based on research conducted during peer review sessions in university classrooms: This research demonstrates that besides issues related to expertise, numerous objective factors contribute to students' poor performance in peer review sessions, resulting in feedback from peer reviewers that may not effectively assist authors. Additionally, this study highlights the influence of emotions in peer review sessions, suggesting that both peer reviewers and authors cannot completely eliminate emotions when providing and receiving feedback. This can lead to peer reviewers and authors approaching

4536-741: The journal also publishes the minutes of meetings of the ICSP and its various subcommittees. From the first identification of a bacterial species in 1872, microbial species were named according to the binomial nomenclature , based on largely subjective descriptive characteristics. By the end of the 19th century, however, it was clear that this nomenclature and classification system required reform. Although several different comprehensive nomenclature systems were invented (most notably, that described in Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology , first published in 1923), none gained international recognition. In 1930,

4620-503: The microbiological community. It first appeared the following year under the title of International Bulletin of Bacteriological Nomenclature and Taxonomy . In 1980, the ICSP published an exhaustive list of all existing bacterial species considered valid in the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names . Thereafter, the committee's Code required all new names to be either published or indexed in its journal to be deemed valid. The journal

4704-408: The name Taraxacum officinale is the same whether the circumscription of the species includes all those small species ( Taraxacum officinale is a "big" species) or whether the circumscription is limited to only one small species among the other hundred ( Taraxacum officinale is a "small" species). The name Taraxacum officinale is the same and the type of the name is the same, but the extent to which

4788-525: The name actually applies varies greatly. Setting the circumscription of a taxon is done by a taxonomist in a publication. Miscellaneous notes: The ICN provides a listing of the various kinds of types (article 9 and the Glossary), the most important of which is the holotype. These are The word "type" appears in botanical literature as a part of some older terms that have no status under the ICN : for example

4872-482: The name of a nominal taxon can be determined." Although in reality biologists may examine many specimens (when available) of a new taxon before writing an official published species description, nonetheless, under the formal rules for naming species (the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature), a single type must be designated, as part of the published description. A type description must include

4956-535: The original author never cited a specimen. A syntype is any one of two or more specimens that is listed in a species description where no holotype was designated; historically, syntypes were often explicitly designated as such, and under the present ICZN this is a requirement, but modern attempts to publish species description based on syntypes are generally frowned upon by practicing taxonomists, and most are gradually being replaced by lectotypes. Those that still exist are still considered name-bearing types. A lectotype

5040-424: The peer review process can be segmented into groups, where students present the papers to be reviewed, while other group members take notes and analyze them. Then, the review scope can be expanded to the entire class. This widens the review sources and further enhances the level of professionalism. With evolving and changing technology, peer review is also expected to evolve. New tools have the potential to transform

5124-441: The peer review process. Mimi Li discusses the effectiveness and feedback of an online peer review software used in their freshman writing class. Unlike traditional peer review methods commonly used in classrooms, the online peer review software offers a plethora of tools for editing articles, along with comprehensive guidance. For instance, it lists numerous questions peer reviewers can ask and allows for various comments to be added to

SECTION 60

#1732776024494

5208-471: 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 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe , through UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews , uses peer review, referred to as "peer learning", to evaluate progress made by its member countries in improving their environmental policies. The State of California

5292-462: The process of rating clinical behavior or compliance with professional society membership standards. The clinical network believes it to be the most ideal method of guaranteeing that distributed exploration is dependable and that any clinical medicines that it advocates are protected and viable for individuals. Thus, the terminology has poor standardization and specificity, particularly as a database search term. In engineering , technical peer review

5376-508: The same species, termed paratypes. These are not name-bearing types . An allotype is a specimen of the opposite sex to the holotype, designated from among paratypes. The word was also formerly used for a specimen that shows features not seen in the holotype of a fossil. The term is not regulated by the ICZN . A neotype is a specimen later selected to serve as the single type specimen when an original holotype has been lost or destroyed or where

5460-406: The same taxon, then the oldest name takes precedence and is considered to be the correct name of the material in hand. If on the other hand, the taxon appears never to have been named at all, then the scientist or another qualified expert picks a type specimen and publishes a new name and an official description. Depending on the nomenclature code applied to the organism in question, a type can be

5544-441: The scientific name of every taxon is almost always based on one particular specimen , or in some cases specimens. Types are of great significance to biologists, especially to taxonomists . Types are usually physical specimens that are kept in a museum or herbarium research collection, but failing that, an image of an individual of that taxon has sometimes been designated as a type. Describing species and appointing type specimens

5628-406: The section ... After studying the diverse forms, I came to consider them as belonging to the one and the same specific type. In botanical nomenclature , a type ( typus , nomenclatural type ), "is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached." (article 7.2) In botany, a type is either a specimen or an illustration. A specimen is a real plant (or one or more parts of a plant or

5712-414: The selected text. Based on observations over the course of a semester, students showed varying degrees of improvement in their writing skills and grades after using the online peer review software. Additionally, they highly praised the technology of online peer review. Biological type In biology , a type is a particular specimen (or in some cases a group of specimens) of an organism to which

5796-579: The self-assessment group. The author's analysis suggests that self-assessment allows individuals to clearly understand the revision goals at each stage, as the author is the most familiar with their own writing. Thus, self-checking naturally follows a systematic and planned approach to revision. In contrast, the effectiveness of peer review is often limited due to the lack of structured feedback, characterized by scattered, meaningless summaries and evaluations that fail to meet author's expectations for revising their work. Stephanie Conner and Jennifer Gray highlight

5880-405: The species description included DNA sequences from blood and feather samples. Assuming there is no future question as to the status of such a species, the absence of a type specimen does not invalidate the name, but it may be necessary for the future to designate a neotype for such a taxon, should any questions arise. However, in the case of the bushshrike, ornithologists have argued that the specimen

5964-414: The suffix "-type" (e.g., allotype , cotype, topotype , generitype , isotype , isoneotype, isolectotype, etc.) but these are not formally regulated by the Code, and a great many are obsolete and/or idiosyncratic. However, some of these categories can potentially apply to genuine type specimens, such as a neotype; e.g., isotypic/topotypic specimens are preferred to other specimens, when they are available at

6048-415: The time a neotype is chosen (because they are from the same time and/or place as the original type). A topotype is a specimen that was obtained from the same location that the original type specimen came from. The term fixation is used by the Code for the declaration of a name-bearing type, whether by original or subsequent designation. Each genus must have a designated type species (the term "genotype"

6132-406: The type specimen was obtained. Zoological collections are maintained by universities and museums. Ensuring that types are kept in good condition and made available for examination by taxonomists are two important functions of such collections. And, while there is only one holotype designated, there can be other "type" specimens, the following of which are formally defined: When a single specimen

6216-442: The value of most students' feedback during peer review. They argue that many peer review sessions fail to meet students' expectations, as students, even as reviewers themselves, feel uncertain about providing constructive feedback due to their lack of confidence in their own writing. The authors further offer numerous improvement strategies across various dimensions, such as course content and specific implementation steps. For instance,

6300-413: The work ( peers ). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field . Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia , scholarly 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

6384-505: The writer or the editor to get much out of the activity. As a response to these concerns, instructors may provide examples, model peer review with the class, or focus on specific areas of feedback during the peer review process. Instructors may also experiment with in-class peer review vs. peer review as homework, or peer review using technologies afforded by learning management systems online. Students that are older can give better feedback to their peers, getting more out of peer review, but it

6468-616: The writing craft at large. Peer review can be problematic for developmental writers, particularly if students view their writing as inferior to others in the class as they may be unwilling to offer suggestions or ask other writers for help. Peer review can impact a student's opinion of themselves as well as others as sometimes students feel a personal connection to the work they have produced, which can also make them feel reluctant to receive or offer criticism. Teachers using peer review as an assignment can lead to rushed-through feedback by peers, using incorrect praise or criticism, thus not allowing

6552-488: The writing craft overall. Academic peer review has faced considerable criticism, with many studies highlighting inherent issues in the peer review process. The editorial peer review process has been found to be strongly biased against ‘negative studies,’ i.e. studies that do not work. This then biases the information base of medicine. Journals become biased against negative studies when values come into play. “Who wants to read something that doesn’t work?” asks Richard Smith in

6636-493: Was a rare and hitherto unknown color morph of a long-known species, using only the available blood and feather samples. While there is still some debate on the need to deposit actual killed individuals as type specimens, it can be observed that given proper vouchering and storage, tissue samples can be just as valuable should dispute about the validity of a species arise. The various types listed above are necessary because many species were described one or two centuries ago, when

6720-512: Was at first published quarterly by Iowa State College Press , which later increased to bimonthly. In 1966, the journal was renamed the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology . For decades, the journal's cover quoted Dutch naturalist Otto Friedrich Müller : "the sure and definite determination (of species of bacteria) requires so much time, so much acumen of eye and judgement, so much of perseverance and patience that there

6804-474: Was estimated in 2004 that over 300 new names had been published but not validated. As of 2017, the editor-in-chief is Martha E. Trujillo ( University of Salamanca ). According to the Journal Citation Reports , the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 2.8. Peer review Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of

6888-538: Was first used in the early 1970s. Since 2017 a monument to peer review is at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. 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 used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure. A prototype professional peer review process

6972-420: Was once used for this but has been abandoned because the word has become much better known as the term for a different concept in genetics ). The description of a genus is usually based primarily on its type species, modified and expanded by the features of other included species. The generic name is permanently associated with the name-bearing type of its type species. Ideally, a type species best exemplifies

7056-556: Was recommended in the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī (854–931). He stated that a visiting physician had to 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. Professional peer review

#493506