peer review

(redirected from Peer-review)
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia.

peer review

n
1. (Education) the evaluation by fellow specialists of research that someone has done in order to assess its suitability for publication or further development
2. (Journalism & Publishing) the evaluation by fellow specialists of research that someone has done in order to assess its suitability for publication or further development
ˌpeer-reˈviewed adj
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Verb1.peer review - evaluate professionally a colleague's work
critique, review - appraise critically; "She reviews books for the New York Times"; "Please critique this performance"
References in periodicals archive ?
KEYWORDS: Analysis, Article, Journal, Manuscript, Peer-Review, Publication.
Last year, eLife trialled a peer-review process designed to give authors more control over the decision to publish.
A directory of reviewers is available at www.calcpa.org/ peer-review. In addition, for firms with audits in unusual or complex industries, there's a "find a reviewer" tool on the AICPA peer review website at www.aicpa.org/INTERESTAREAS/PEERREVIEW/ Pages/PeerReviewHome.aspx.
The new policy makes significant strides toward robust and transparent peer-review at the U.S.
The peer-review process was one of the few elements of journal publishing that hadn't yet changed.
It is in light of this practice that the editors of the Journal of Markets & Morality conceived the idea for this peer-review primer.
Casadevall and Fang posit that new incentives for publication dramatically increased the number of research papers: publishing in peer-reviewed journals is the major mechanism for the dissemination of scientific knowledge (the venue chosen for publication can have a significant impact in the visibility of a study), scientists prefer to publish in journals that present the greatest hurdles, and hiring, promotion, and funding have become heavily reliant on publication record.5 The peer-review process is essential in academic publishing, but it delays the dissemination of research results to target audiences.
You are familiar with the peer-review process, a mechanism whereby a professional review body evaluates the soundness of a physician's medical decisions in any given situation.
A resounding 90% of the study cohort believe that peer review is effective primarily in improving the quality of published papers, and 89% acknowledged that the peer-review process had improved their last published paper.
In addition, we will continue to work together to monitor and improve the peer-review process for NIEHS applications across all NIH study sections.
They also say that firms that have problems noted on their peer-review report should, if they don't correct the problems, be subject to discipline, and that the problems should be reported to the state board of accountancy.
Chris Hornet, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told CNSNews.com: "Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication demonstrates either a new low in desperation or a new generation believing there are no checks and therefore no limits."