A process by which a panel of physicians reviews the diagnosis and treatment of patients for quality and appropriateness of care.
The process scientific journals use to check the accuracy of research reports: experts, or "peers," read the manuscript before publication.
The process by which submissions to a journal (editorial peer review) or grant giving body (grant application peer review) are assessed critically by the authors’ peers, namely subject matter experts, prior to a decision being taken.
Evaluation of the accuracy or validity of technical data, observations, and interpretation by qualified experts in an organized group process.
The evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field..(DE:Evaluation durch Experten, FR:Contrôle par les pairs, IT:Valutazione tra pari)
One method of testing a specific component of a plan. Typically, the component is reviewed for accuracy and completeness by personnel (other than the owner or author) with appropriate technical or business knowledge.
Review of applications for support from the NIH by groups composed of scientists from the extramural research community (as opposed to review by federal/NIH employees).
In a workers compensation case, a medical review by an impartial physician or other-health care provided selected by the Secretary of Labor and Industry upon recommendation of the deans of the medical colleges located in Pennsylvania; a panel of such professionals and providers selected by the Secretary of Labor and Industry upon recommendation of the deans of the medical colleges located in Pennsylvania or recommendation of professional associations representing such professionals and providers; or a Peer Review Organization approved by the commissioner and selected by the Department of Labor and Industry.
The independent review of work by other experts and/or professionals within the same academic or professional fields.
Critical reading of a proposal or contract by reputable practitioners and others conversant with the field it addresses, who are in a position to judge the competence of the applicant.
the first stage in the Editorial process, where your writing is reviewed by other members of the Community.
The evaluation of the clinical practice activities as well as the clinical outcomes of one health care professional by others of the same specialty and geographic region.
is a review of any scientific work by independent scientists, mainly to look if there are not made methodologic errors. Normally they don't give comment on the produced figures themselves, except for clear mistakes.
Process by which an accounting firm's practice is evaluated for compliance with professional standards. The objective is achieved through the performance of an independent review by one's peers.
A system using reviewers who are the professional equals of the principal investigator to evaluate the scientific merit of proposals. Peer review is legislatively mandated in some programs and in other programs is administratively required.
Evaluation of the present guideline document by an interdisciplinary panel of experts using the Institute of Medicine (Field and Lohr, 1990) attributes of clinical practice guidelines as evaluation criteria.
The evaluation of the quality of the total health care provided by Plan medical staff by equivalently trained medical personnel.
Review of health care provided by providers by professionals with training equal to the staff that provided the treatment.
a formal process whereby articles submitted to a journal or conference are sent to several established scholars in that field of study. These reviewers may suggest improvements before deciding if the article should be published or included in the conference. See: How to identify academic resources
a process by which experts on a particular topic assess the quality of a scholarly journal article before it is published.
a critical review by technical experts without a vested interest in the particular investigation
an engagement where one CPA firm expresses assurance about whether another CPA firm's system of quality control over its accounting and auditing practice meets the requirements of professional standards
a periodic independent review of a firm's accounting and auditing quality control systems and is known as the AICPA's Practice Monitoring Program
a periodic outside review of a firm's quality control system in accounting and auditing and is known as the AICPA's Practice Monitoring Program
a practice monitoring program in which audit documentation of one CPA firm is periodically reviewed by independent partners of other firms to determine that they conform to professional standards
a process of ensuring the quality of an article prior to publication in a journal, where the article is sent out by the editor of the journal to be read and commented on by experts in a given field of study.
The process in which a new book, article, etc., is submitted by the publisher to experts in the field for critical evaluation prior to publication, a standard procedure in scholarly publishing
A process by which an article is approved for publication by experts.
The process scientists use to examine the work of fellow scientists before it is published or accepted within the scientific community.
Review of a manuscript by peers of the author (scientists working in the same area of specialization).
A refereeing process used to check the quality and importance of research studies. It aims to provide a wider check on the quality and interpretation of a report. For example, an article submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is reviewed by other experts in the field.
Traditional quality assurance program composed of medical professionals who monitor care and investigate adverse outcomes. The goal of peer review is to find and correct medical practices that do not conform to the standard of care.
an activity in which scientists submit their work to recognized experts in the field for fair and objective review; intended to screen unsound work and improve communication. Also called expert review and referee review.
The process by which scholarly articles and books are published. The editors of peer-reviewed publications require authors to submit drafts of their work for consideration. These drafts are then reviewed by experts in the field who evaluate them. In considering articles for publication, reviewers assess the quality of authors' research as well as their contribution to scholarship. For more information, see How to Identify a Scholarly Article.
a process through which a research paper or other piece of writing is critically reviewed prior to publication, by individuals with in-depth knowledge of the authors' area of research or investigation, to ensure that the work under review is accurate, reliable, well-written, and worthy of publication; the process is generally guided by an editor who makes the final decision
A process by which research studies are examined by an independent panel of researchers for review. The purpose of such is to open the study to examination, criticism, review and replication by peer investigators and ultimately incorporate the new knowledge into the field.
Peer review is a well-accepted indicator of quality scholarship. It is the process by which an author's peers read a paper submitted for publication. A number of recognized researchers in the field evaluate the manuscript and recommend its publication, revision, or rejection. Articles accepted for publication through a peer review process implicitly meet the discipline's expected level of expertise.
A process through which manuscripts submitted to a journal are evaluated for quality by one or more subject experts in addition to the editor before being accepted for publication.
A structured formal review conducted to detect problems in a product early in the development process. The peer review is similar to an inspection, except that the review team consists of peers to the author who may or may not be a part of the project team.
the process by which manuscripts submitted to health, biomedical, and other scientifically oriented journals and other publications are evaluated by experts in appropriate fields (usually anonymous to the authors) to determine if the manuscripts are of adequate quality for publication.
The nationally recognized process OCAST uses to review all research proposals before approval for funding. Out-of state experts who are highly respected in their fields are brought to Oklahoma to evaluate and rank the proposals according to their scientific merit and commercial potential. Using out-of-state scientists and researchers helps OCAST ensure the selection process is objective and merit-based.
Review of health care services by a professional with equal training and credentials of the provider of medical or dental services.
Peer review is the process of judging the quality of the information in and the presentation of an article by experts on the subject the article deals with, where the judgement is explicitized in the form of a recommendation. Comment: The demarcation between the duties of the editor and the referee depend on the strategy of the journal or the publisher. In some journals, the editor is solely responsible for the rejection of the article, or the acceptance, possibly after modification. In other journals, the editor's work is of a more administrative nature, and the article is always judged by at least two referees. Peer review is part of the process of scientific communication via articles. It can also take place after publication of the article, in the form of comments or ratings in some form attached to the published article. See section 2.1.3.
The review of an article or other publication by a group of experts on the topic. Used by scholarly publications as a way of determining whether an article should be accepted for publication.
A process where an article is viewed by experts in the same field as the author prior to publication of the article. Generally a peer reviewed article is considered scholarly.
The evaluation of the quality of the services provided by a planâ€(tm)s clinical staff by equivalently trained clinical personnel.
The process by which articles get accepted into scholarly journals. One or more experts in the field, plus an editor, review the document and suggest changes that the author must make made before the article is published.
A review by members of the profession (peers) regarding the quality of care provided to a patient, including documentation of care, diagnostic steps used, conclusions reached, therapy given, appropriateness of utilization, and reasonableness of charges claims.
Process by which work of a person or group is evaluated by other experts in the same field.
The evaluation by practicing physicians or others of the efficacy and efficiency of services ordered or performed by other practicing medical professionals.
Review of a clinical trial by experts chosen by the study sponsor. These experts review the trials for scientific merit, participant safety, and ethical considerations.
A system for evaluating research applications that uses reviewers who are the professional equals of the applicant. NIH: Peer review process used is Dual review system . The first level of review provides a judgment of scientific merit. The second level of review, usually conducted by an advisory Council, assesses the quality of the first review, sets program priorities, and makes funding recommendations.
External review and evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of an institution's academic programs, staffing, and structure, carried out by a team of external evaluators who are specialists in the fields reviewed and knowledgeable about higher education in general. Reviews may be based on standards set by the accrediting organizations or on quality standards set more broadly.
Assessment procedure carried out by external experts.
An examination and evaluation of the performance of a professional or technician by a board or committee made up of people in the same occupation.
Evaluation by practicing physicians or other professionals of the effectiveness and efficiency of services ordered or performed by colleagues.
review of your work by another with similar knowledge or experience in the same or a closely related field. [D05035] SU review of product s or services, following defined procedure s, by peers for the purpose of identifying deficiencies and improvement [D05196] SA-CMM
A review of an audit agency by independent representatives of other audit agencies to determine if it is performing its audits as provided by professional standards.
Review of a research proposal or paper by scientists who have expertise in the field.
Peer review is a process that articles in many scholarly journals go through before they are published. An editorial board consisting of experts in the same field as the author review the article and decide if it is authoritative enough for publication. Journals that use peer review are often called refereed journals.
a process that articles in many journals go through before they are published. Once an article is submitted for publication, it is sent to an editorial board comprised of experts in the field to be evaluated. The submitted article must receive the approval of the editorial board before it is published. The editorial board is usually identified at the beginning of each issue of a journal.
Peer review means that scientists ask other scientists - that is, their peers - to review their work. In fact, scientists use peer review in all stages of the research process, from narrowing down a question to presenting research results.
To evaluate professionally a colleague’s work
A system using reviewers who are the professional equals of the principal investigator or program director who is to be responsible for directing or conducting the proposed project. It is a form of objective review. Peer review is legislatively mandated in some programs and in other programs is administratively required.
A critical analysis of the scientific study by other scientists, drawing on the expertise and critical review of other professionals in the same field of study.
A formal review where a product is examined in detail by a person or group other than the originator. See Inspection, Walk-through.
Your peers are those with a similar level of experience and knowledge as you. Peer review is a system for researchers and doctors to look at each other's work and make sure that research papers submitted for publication in medical and scientific journals are of adequate quality.
A group of federally employed doctors who evaluate Medicare services provided at certified hospitals.
An assessment of a product conducted by a person or persons of similar expertise to the author.
The process used by the scientific community to assess a scientific paper, report, project, or proposal by seeking comments on it from independent assessors ('peers') working in the same field.
Peer review is the process of review by qualified outside known as "peers," (experts in the same field) who identify manuscripts, research, proposals, grants and other work(s) that are worthy of publication. In the peer review process, authors submit their work to scholarly academic journals, who in turn, send manuscripts to an editorial board or similar group of peers to determine the article's acceptability, validity, reproducibility of results, grammar and scholarly use of theory. Authors may then be asked to edit or revise before their work is accepted for publication. Also see "Refereed", below .
Analysis of research by a group of professionals of comparable knowledge and expertise in a specific scientific or medical field.
The analysis of a clinician's care by a group of that clinician's professional colleagues. The provider's care is generally compared to applicable standards of care, and the group's analysis is used as a learning tool for the members of the group.
A refereeing process, used to check the quality and importance of reports of research. An article submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal is reviewed by other experts in the area. It aims to provide a wider check on the quality and interpretation of a report.
A process utilized by some federal and private agencies, whereby committees of research investigators in the same area of research or with the necessary expertise (from other institutions) review and recommend applications to the funding agency.
1) A retrospective consideration or an examination by one or more individuals of equal standing or rank. 2) A process established to provide for review by licensed dentists of: the care provided by a dentist for a single patient; disputes regarding fees; cases submitted by carriers, initiated by patients or dentists; quality of care and appropriateness of treatment.
the process by which articles are chosen to be included in a refereed journal. An editorial board consisting of experts in the same field as the author review the article and decide if it is authoritative enough for publication.
The procedure by which academic journal articles are reviewed by other researchers before being accepted for publication.
Review by a peer of notes, data, and other documents which form the basis for a scientific conclusion.
Review of health care provided by a medical staff with training equal to the staff which provided the treatment.
An evaluation of a CPA firms' system of quality control policies and procedures to ensure that a firm adheres to professional standards, in all material respects or a review of the firms' accounting reports and financial statements to determine conformity with professional standards, applicable to those engagements in all material respects. See engagement, report and system review (all AICPA Peer review Program peer review) and peer reviews under the Center for Public Company Audit Firms Peer Review Program in this Glossary for further definitions. Peer reviews are performed in accordance with standards established by the AICPA Peer Review Board for firms enrolled in the AICPA peer Review Program, and by the Center for Public Company Audit Firms Peer review Committee for firms enrolled in the Center for Public Company Audit Firms Peer Review Program.
A method of selecting manuscripts for publication in which a body of professionals or scholars is given the task of reviewing the submitted materials. In the popular press, by contrast, an editor or publisher chooses manuscripts for publication. The term "refereed" is synonymous with peer reviewed.
A process during which a group of experts examine a document to determine whether it is worthy of publication. Journals and other publications use a peer review process — usually arranged so that reviewers do not know who the author of the document is — to filter articles for quality and relevance. See also refereed publication.
Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. It is used primarily by editors to select and to screen submitted manuscripts, and by funding agencies, to decide the awarding of grants. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general.
Peer Review is a quarterly magazine published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities that reports "emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate liberal education". First published early in 2000, the magazine is edited by Shelley Johnson Carey with an Advisory Board of nineteen members, all academics. On its web site the publisher claims a magazine readership in excess of 6,000.