Misplaced Pages

#370629

46-614: Gifted Child Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering the field of education . The journal's editor-in-chief is Dr. Jennifer R. Cross from William & Mary. The journal was established in 1957 and is published by SAGE Publications in association with the National Association for Gifted Children . The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and the Social Sciences Citation Index . According to

92-517: 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

138-477: 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

184-454: A doctor to overrule a patient's wishes when it is necessary for their health to do so. He says that doctors should be placed high in the social hierarchy, with enough pay that they aren't forced into other work, although he also instructs doctors not to flaunt their wealth. Al-Ruhawi says that the fees charged for rich patients should be enough to cover the expenses of poor patients who cannot pay for themselves, as otherwise medical care for both

230-557: 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

276-639: A local medical council of other physicians, who would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of medical care. Professional peer review 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

322-415: 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

368-496: 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

414-448: 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

460-525: 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

506-492: Is difficult to ascertain Al-Ruhawi's impact on later thinkers in the field. Given Al-Ruhawi's extensive research and reliance on older traditions, and the degree to which Islamic medical ethics followed his ideas, it is likely that Al-Ruhawi's book was generally well-received and accepted. Adab al-Tabib is divided into twenty chapters, each dealing with a specific topic of medical ethics. They fall into three general categories:

SECTION 10

#1732948058371

552-586: 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

598-551: 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

644-810: Is not entirely clear, he was most likely still a Christian when he wrote Adab al-Tabib . Despite his beliefs, Adab al-Tabib is primarily an Islamic text, built upon Islamic beliefs and practices. Due to this strong Islamic influence, a modern scholar has disputed this interpretation, claiming that only a full Muslim could have produced such a text. Adab al-Tabib builds on the works of several earlier Muslim and middle-eastern Christian philosophers and medical authorities, like Al-Kindi and Hunayn ibn Ishaq . However, it draws from many other historical traditions as well, especially those of ancient Greece. The book incorporates themes and direct quotes from Greek philosophers such as Aristotle , Plato , and Hippocrates , among others. It also borrows particularly heavily from

690-461: Is often used to determine an academic paper 's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by 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

736-413: 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

782-432: 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

828-502: 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

874-450: 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 ,

920-399: 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)

966-506: Is used to inform decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure. A prototype professional peer review process 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

SECTION 20

#1732948058371

1012-571: The Journal Citation Reports , its 2018 impact factor is 1.304, ranking it 41st out of 59 journals in the category "Psychology, Educational" and 24th out of 41 journals in the category "Education, Special". In December, 2018, under the leadership of Co-Editors Jill L. Adelson and Michael S. Matthews, GCQ was the first gifted education journal to sign the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines . In March 2019, they announced

1058-467: 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

1104-845: 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

1150-429: 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

1196-431: 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

1242-490: The conduct of the physician, the conduct of the patient, and the conduct of the public at large towards the medical profession and their patients. The text covers a physician's personal beliefs and practices, placing great importance on his faith in God and personal health and hygiene, as well as his manner with his colleagues, nurses, and patients. Al-Ruhawi emphasizes respect for the physician in patients and visitors, even allowing for

1288-426: 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

1334-461: The examination of the data or observing the outcomes. Peer-reviewed Peer review 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

1380-531: 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

1426-532: The following centuries with, for example, the journal Nature making it standard practice in 1973. The term "peer review" 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

Gifted Child Quarterly - Misplaced Pages Continue

1472-419: The following practices: (1) data are available in a public, open-access repository with a DOI or other permanent path; (2) materials (e.g., analytic code, interview protocols) are available in a public, open-access repository with a DOI or other permanent path; and (3) a preregistration (and, if applicable, analysis) plan was registered in a public, open-access repository with a DOI or other permanent path prior to

1518-627: 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

1564-1153: The journal's commitment to transparency, openness, and research improvement in an open-access article . The journal is committed to meeting Level I or better in all eight areas of the TOP Guidelines: citation standards, data transparency, analytic methods (code) transparency, research materials transparency, design and analysis transparency, study and analysis plan preregistration, and replication. To that end, GCQ submission guidelines were expanded to encourage submission of replication studies with peer review, with particular encouragement to use Registered Reports for replication studies (Level III); to require authors to provide appropriate citations for data and materials, when appropriate (Level III); and to require authors to state whether data are available, and if so, where to access them (Level I). To encourage individual researchers to implement open science practices, GCQ implemented an Open Science badge system in 2019, using small icons to communicate clearly to readers when articles have implemented specific open science practices. The badges indicate

1610-424: 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

1656-441: 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

1702-471: 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

1748-462: 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

1794-414: The rich and the poor suffer. In Adab al-Tabib , Al-Ruhawi also discusses legislative practices and penalties for false and incompetent doctors. To weed out quacks, he advocates medical exams and licenses, the contents of which would be heavily based on the works of Galen. He encourages doctors to keep records of the patient's symptoms, treatments, and progress, so that it may be reviewed by peers should

1840-477: 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. Adab al-Tabib Al-Ruhawi was born a Christian, probably of the Nestorian sect that had split from mainstream Christianity in 530. Although it

1886-579: 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

Gifted Child Quarterly - Misplaced Pages Continue

1932-442: 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,

1978-505: 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

2024-616: 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

2070-488: 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

2116-404: The writings of the prominent Roman physician Galen . Despite his thoroughness in citing his influences, Al-Ruhawi notably makes no mention or acknowledgement to any earlier texts that specifically deal with Islamic medical ethics, suggesting that this book may have been the earliest work on the subject. Because contemporary and later Islamic works have been relatively neglected in analysis, it

#370629