Misplaced Pages

#754245

51-543: Science is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and one of the world's top academic journals. It was first published in 1880, is currently circulated weekly and has a subscriber base of around 130,000. Because institutional subscriptions and online access serve a larger audience, its estimated readership is over 400,000 people. Science

102-529: 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

153-481: 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

204-557: 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

255-415: 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

306-501: 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

357-816: A reduced fee. However, research articles published after 1997 are available for free (with online registration) one year after they are published i.e. delayed open access . Significant public-health related articles are also available for free, sometimes immediately after publication. AAAS members may also access the pre-1997 Science archives at the Science website, where it is called "Science Classic". Institutions can opt to add Science Classic to their subscriptions for an additional fee. Some older articles can also be accessed via JSTOR and ProQuest . The journal also participates in initiatives that provide free or low-cost access to readers in developing countries, including HINARI , OARE, AGORA , and Scidev.net . Other features of

408-571: A specific field, Science and its rival Nature cover the full range of scientific disciplines . According to the Journal Citation Reports , Science ' s 2023 impact factor was 44.7. Studies of methodological quality and reliability have found that some high-prestige journals including Science "publish significantly substandard structures", and overall "reliability of published research works in several fields may be decreasing with increasing journal rank". Although it

459-448: 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

510-525: 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

561-565: Is based in Washington, D.C., United States, with a second office in Cambridge , UK. The major focus of the journal is publishing important original scientific research and research reviews, but Science also publishes science-related news, opinions on science policy and other matters of interest to scientists and others who are concerned with the wide implications of science and technology. Unlike most scientific journals , which focus on

SECTION 10

#1732780927755

612-479: 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

663-594: 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

714-551: 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

765-413: 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

816-432: 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

867-479: Is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of 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

918-661: Is the journal of the AAAS, membership in the AAAS is not required to publish in Science . Papers are accepted from authors around the world. Competition to publish in Science is very intense, as an article published in such a highly cited journal can lead to attention and career advancement for the authors. Fewer than 7% of articles submitted are accepted for publication. Science was founded by New York journalist John Michels in 1880 with financial support from Thomas Edison and later from Alexander Graham Bell . (Edison received favorable editorial treatment in return, without disclosure of

969-507: 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

1020-450: 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 ,

1071-399: 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)

SECTION 20

#1732780927755

1122-904: The Salk Institute for Biological Studies , and chief of the Laboratory of Neuropharmacology of the National Institute of Mental Health . In 1989, he was inducted into the Woodrow Wilson High School Hall of Fame. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences , the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , and the American Philosophical Society . This article about an American scientist

1173-607: The Science website include the free " ScienceNow " section with "up to the minute news from science", and " ScienceCareers ", which provides free career resources for scientists and engineers. Science Express ( Sciencexpress ) provides advance electronic publication of selected Science papers. Science received funding for COVID-19 -related coverage from the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation . Peer review Peer review

1224-768: The Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine in 1960. The next two years he spent as an intern and resident at the Barnes-Jewish Hospital . He is chairman emeritus of the Department of Neuropharmacology at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California , past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science , former editor-in-chief of Science (1995–2000), director of Behavioral Neurobiology at

1275-467: 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

1326-515: The AAAS and executive publisher of Science , stated that the journal was becoming increasingly international: "[I]nternationally co-authored papers are now the norm—they represent almost 60 percent of the papers. In 1992, it was slightly less than 20 percent." The latest editions of the journal are available online, through the main journal website, only to subscribers, AAAS members, and for delivery to IP addresses at institutions that subscribe; students, K–12 teachers, and some others can subscribe at

1377-871: 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

1428-429: 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

1479-431: 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

1530-426: 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

1581-597: The early part of the 20th century, important articles published in Science included papers on fruit fly genetics by Thomas Hunt Morgan , gravitational lensing by Albert Einstein , and spiral nebulae by Edwin Hubble . After Cattell died in 1944, the ownership of the journal was transferred to the AAAS. After Cattell's death in 1944, the journal lacked a consistent editorial presence until Graham DuShane became editor in 1956. In 1958, under DuShane's leadership, Science absorbed The Scientific Monthly , thus increasing

Science (journal) - Misplaced Pages Continue

1632-543: The editor of Science in 2000. Biochemist Bruce Alberts took his place in March 2008. Geophysicist Marcia McNutt became editor-in-chief in June 2013. During her tenure the family of journals expanded to include Science Robotics and Science Immunology , and open access publishing with Science Advances . Jeremy M. Berg became editor-in-chief on July 1, 2016. Former Washington University in St. Louis Provost Holden Thorp

1683-531: 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

1734-446: The financial relationship, at a time when his reputation was suffering due to delays producing the promised commercially viable light bulb.) However, the journal never gained enough subscribers to succeed and ended publication in March 1882. Alexander Graham Bell and Gardiner Greene Hubbard bought the magazine rights and hired young entomologist Samuel H. Scudder to resurrect the journal one year later. They had some success while covering

1785-627: 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

1836-638: The journal's circulation by over 62% from 38,000 to more than 61,000. Physicist Philip Abelson , a co-discoverer of neptunium , served as editor from 1962 to 1984. Under Abelson the efficiency of the review process was improved and the publication practices were brought up to date. During this time, papers on the Apollo program missions and some of the earliest reports on AIDS were published. Biochemist Daniel E. Koshland Jr. served as editor from 1985 until 1995. From 1995 until 2000, neuroscientist Floyd E. Bloom held that position. Biologist Donald Kennedy became

1887-493: The meetings of prominent American scientific societies, including the AAAS. However, by 1894, Science was again in financial difficulty and was sold to psychologist James McKeen Cattell for $ 500 (equivalent to $ 17,610 in 2023). In an agreement worked out by Cattell and AAAS secretary Leland O. Howard , Science became the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1900. During

1938-424: 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

1989-441: 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

2040-471: 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

2091-462: 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

Science (journal) - Misplaced Pages Continue

2142-405: 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. Floyd E. Bloom He received an A.B. , cum laude from Southern Methodist University in 1956 and an M.D. , cum laude from

2193-579: 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

2244-473: The type of activity and by 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"

2295-442: 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,

2346-505: 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

2397-616: 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

2448-488: 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

2499-538: 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

2550-578: Was named editor-in-chief on Monday, August 19, 2019. In February 2001, draft results of the human genome were simultaneously published by Nature and Science with Science publishing the Celera Genomics paper and Nature publishing the publicly funded Human Genome Project . In 2007, Science (together with Nature ) received the Prince of Asturias Award for Communications and Humanity. In 2015, Rush D. Holt Jr. , chief executive officer of

2601-556: 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

SECTION 50

#1732780927755
#754245