The Experts below are selected from a list of 317220 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John H R Maunsell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the neuroscience Peer Review consortium
Neural Development, 2009Co-Authors: Clifford B Saper, John H R MaunsellAbstract:As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked. In order to encourage dissemination of the details outlined in this Editorial, it will also be published in other journals in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
-
the neuroscience Peer Review consortium
Experimental Neurology, 2009Co-Authors: Clifford B Saper, John H R MaunsellAbstract:As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked.
Clifford B Saper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the neuroscience Peer Review consortium
Neural Development, 2009Co-Authors: Clifford B Saper, John H R MaunsellAbstract:As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked. In order to encourage dissemination of the details outlined in this Editorial, it will also be published in other journals in the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
-
the neuroscience Peer Review consortium
Experimental Neurology, 2009Co-Authors: Clifford B Saper, John H R MaunsellAbstract:As the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium (NPRC) ends its first year, it is worth looking back to see how the experiment has worked.
Josephine Beatson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the psychiatrist and Peer Review a psychodynamic perspective
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 1993Co-Authors: Josephine BeatsonAbstract:Consideration of Peer Review is timely, given that formalisation of Peer Review processes is one of the responses the psychiatric profession could make to increasing calls for accountability from within and without the profession. The establishment of formal Peer Review evoked strong, often hostile, responses among psychiatrists in the United States, reflecting considerable underlying anxiety. This paper examines the responses to formal Peer Review in psychiatrists from a psychodynamic perspective.
-
Peer Review of Psychotherapeutic Treatments in Psychiatry: A Review of the Literature
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 1993Co-Authors: Josephine Beatson, Jeanette E. LancasterAbstract:This paper Reviews the literature concerning the current status of Peer Review of psychotherapeutic treatments in psychiatry. Accounts of the aims and mechanisms of Peer Review, administrative issues and the effects of Peer Review on patient care and professional practice are examined.
Ulrich Poschl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
multi stage open Peer Review scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional Peer Review with the virtues of transparency and self regulation
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 2012Co-Authors: Ulrich PoschlAbstract:The traditional forms of scientific publishing and Peer Review do not live up to the demands of efficient communication and quality assurance in today’s highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science. They need to be advanced and complemented by interactive and transparent forms of Review, publication, and discussion that are open to the scientific community and to the public. The advantages of open access, public Peer Review and interactive discussion can be efficiently and flexibly combined with the strengths of traditional scientific Peer Review. Since 2001 the benefits and viability of this approach are clearly demonstrated by the highly successful interactive open access journal Atmo¬sphe¬ric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) and a growing number of sister journals launched and operated by the European Geosciences Union (EGU) and the open access publisher Copernicus. The interactive open access journals are practicing an integrative multi-stage process of publication and Peer Review combined with interactive public discussion, which effectively resolves the dilemma between rapid scientific exchange and thorough quality assurance. The high efficiency and predictive validity of multi-stage open Peer Review have been confirmed in a series of dedicated studies by evaluation experts from the social sciences, and the same or similar concepts have recently also been adopted in other disciplines, including the life sciences and economics. Multi-stage open Peer Review can be flexibly adjusted to the needs and peculiarities of different scientific communities. Due to the flexibility and compatibility with traditional structures of scientific publishing and Peer Review, the multi-stage open Peer Review concept enables efficient evolution in scientific communication and quality assurance. It has the potential for swift replacement of hidden Peer Review as the standard of scientific quality assurance, and it provides a basis for open evaluation in science.
Jon Pearce - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how does student Peer Review influence perceptions engagement and academic outcomes a case study
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2014Co-Authors: Raoul A Mulder, Chi Baik, Ryan Naylor, Jon PearceAbstract:Involving students in Peer Review has many pedagogical benefits, but few studies have explicitly investigated relationships between the content of Peer Reviews, student perceptions and assessment outcomes. We conducted a case study of Peer Review within a third-year undergraduate subject at a research-intensive Australian university, in which we examined: (1) students’ perceptions of the Peer Review process before and after Peer Review, (2) content of the Peer Reviews and what kinds of feedback were adopted and (3) the effect of participation in Peer Review on performance (grades) in the assessment task. Students overwhelmingly perceived Peer Review to be beneficial, and the opportunity to participate in Peer Review resulted in a significant improvement in the quality of work submitted for assessment. Students who benefited most from Peer Review were those of below-median performance, and the magnitude of benefit was related to the degree to which students engaged with the Peer Review process. Our study c...
