Misplaced Pages

Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

The Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute ( PVRI ) is a global medical research charity. It is registered Charity in the United Kingdom (Charity No: 1127115) and a private limited company by guarantee. The company registration number is 5780068. The PVRI is a professional membership organisation for doctors and scientists from around the world who have a special interest in pulmonary hypertension (PH) or pulmonary vascular diseases (PVD).

#192807

47-515: The concept of the PVRI as a research and educational institute catering to the global PVD community was initiated by Professor Ghazwan Butrous . The initial planning was conducted during a meeting at Heathrow, UK, with the key founders being Ghazwan Butrous, Stuart Rich , Martin Wilkins, Evangelos Michelakis, Marc Semigran, and Fritz Grimminger. In 2006, the organisation was formally established, and in 2007, it

94-517: 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

141-477: 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

188-557: 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

235-415: 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

282-496: 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

329-448: 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

376-626: Is a peer-reviewed medical journal covering the fields of pulmonary circulation and pulmonary vascular disease. It was established in 2011 and is published by Sage Publications on behalf of the Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute , of which it is an official journal. The editors-in-chief are Jason X.-J. Yuan and Nicholas W. Morrell. The journal is abstracted and indexed in BIOSIS Previews and Science Citation Index Expanded . Peer-reviewed Peer review

423-525: 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

470-479: 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

517-586: 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

SECTION 10

#1733084544193

564-551: 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

611-413: 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

658-432: 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

705-479: 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

752-502: 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

799-450: 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 ,

846-399: 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)

893-817: The Textbook of Pulmonary Vascular Disease . The PVRI raises funds through membership contributions and fees to scientific events. Additionally, the PVRI receives grants from industry bodies and educational funds for its various initiatives. The PVRI is currently involved in several significant initiatives, including the GoDeep meta-registry, the Papuca study, and the Innovative Drug Development Initiative (IDDI), where industry, academia, and clinicians collaborate to develop PH therapeutic outcomes quickly and safely. Pulmonary Circulation Pulmonary Circulation

940-467: 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

987-845: 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

SECTION 20

#1733084544193

1034-669: The PVRI Board of Directors. The executive branch comprises the President, who serves two-year terms, and the Chief Executive Officer, who is supported by administrative staff, and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the PVRI. The PVRI has formed several "Task Forces," or specialised teams, to draw attention to particular PVDs. It is generally understood that having high blood pressure can cause problems and reduce life expectancy. High blood pressure usually refers to

1081-501: The PVRI published its first periodical, the PVRI Review, in 2008-2011. The PVRI's official scientific journal, Pulmonary Circulation, is an international, peer-reviewed medical research journal that focuses exclusively on publishing original research, review articles, case reports, guidelines, and consensus articles in the fields of the pulmonary circulation and pulmonary vascular disease. In 2011, several PVRI members collaborated to produce

1128-523: The Textbook of Pulmonary Vascular Disease. The PVRI's official scientific journal, Pulmonary Circulation , is an international, peer-reviewed medical research journal focused on publishing original research, review articles, case reports, guidelines and consensus articles exclusively in the fields of the pulmonary circulation and pulmonary vascular disease. It is published on behalf of the PVRI by Wiley . In 2011, several PVRI members collaborated to produce

1175-429: 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

1222-431: 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

1269-426: 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

1316-399: The diagnosis is delayed, usually for about two years, by which time the patient is severely compromised. The sufferer gradually becomes short of breath and very tired, finds everyday activities exhausting and can no longer work or carry out everyday tasks. PVD affects all ages and social demographics across the globe. The heart has to work very hard to pump blood through the narrowed arteries in

1363-689: The disease is often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. The PVRI hosts two scientific meetings each year - the Annual Congress (held in January/February) and the Drug Discovery and Development Symposium (held in July). These meetings provide a forum for scientists and researchers in the field of pulmonary vascular disease, the pharmaceutical industry, and relevant regulatory authorities to determine which treatments should be developed for future use. In addition to

1410-531: 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

1457-627: 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

Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute - Misplaced Pages Continue

1504-416: The lungs and eventually the patient develops severe heart failure. PVD can occur as a primary disorder, but there are also various factors which can contribute to PVD, such as living in high altitude, obesity, prolonged and strenuous exercise, congenital heart disease and various other causes. It is estimated that over 60 million people in the world suffer from PVD, although this figure could be much higher as

1551-424: 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

1598-441: 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

1645-471: 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

1692-419: The pressure in all the organs of the body, except for the lungs. It is very rare to find high blood pressure only in the lungs, but when it occurs, it is often deadly. This condition is called pulmonary hypertension, which leads to pulmonary vascular disease (PVD), the progressive obstruction of the lung blood vessels. This disease is incurable and often fatal. It often has a quiet and insidious onset and therefore

1739-462: 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

1786-579: 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

1833-618: The two international scientific meetings, the PVRI Regional Task Forces organise local and national meetings to raise awareness of PVD. Additionally, the PVRI co-sponsors and supports a number of regional and worldwide events with the aim of advancing research and activities in the PVD field. Members of the PVRI have access to an online library of clinical management guidelines, educational materials, advice, and information about current research initiatives and clinical trials. Publications:

1880-475: 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"

1927-442: 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,

Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute - Misplaced Pages Continue

1974-505: 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

2021-616: 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

2068-488: 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

2115-533: Was first used in the early 1970s. A monument to peer review has been at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow since 2017. 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

2162-547: 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

2209-602: Was registered as a charity in the UK. The PVRI commenced its operations with an inaugural meeting in Malta, attended by 25 PH professionals, who formed the framework of the organisation with the objective of mitigating the disease's global impact through study, instruction, and clinical care. The PVRI operates a virtual platform for networking between scientists and physicians, headquartered in the United Kingdom. PVRI operations are governed by

#192807