1 Professional 2 Scholarly 3 Government policy 4 Medical 5 See also 6 References
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 common in decisions related
to faculty advancement and tenure. Henry Oldenburg
(1619–1677) was a British philosopher who is seen as the 'father' of
modern scientific peer review.
WA prototype[clarification needed] 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 a local medical council of other physicians, who
would decide whether the treatment had met the required standards of
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.
Collaborative document review Objectivity (philosophy) Academic publishing Scientific literature
^ Hatch, Robert A. (February 1998). "The Scientific Revolution: Correspondence Networks". University of Florida. Retrieved 21 August 2016. ^ Oldenburg, Henry (1665). "Epistle Dedicatory". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1. doi:10.1098/rstl.1665.0001. ^ Hall, Marie Boas (2002). Henry Oldenburg: shaping the Royal Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-851053-5. ^ Spier, Ray (2002). "The history of the peer-review process". Trends in Biotechnology. 20 (8): 357–8. doi:10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6. PMID 12127284. ^ Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Ann. Intern. Med. 118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628. ^ Milgrom P, Weinstein P, Ratener P, Read WA, Morrison K; Weinstein; Ratener; Read; Morrison (1978). "Dental Examinations for Quality Control: Peer Review versus Self-Assessment". Am. J. Public Health. 68 (4): 394–401. doi:10.2105/AJPH.68.4.394. PMC 1653950 . PMID 645987. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ "AICPA Peer Review Manual". American Institute of CPAs. Retrieved October 4, 2010. ^ 2012 Peer Review Program Manual ^ "Peer Review". UK Legal Services Commission. Retrieved October 4, 2010. ^ "Peer Review Ratings". Martindale. Retrieved October 4, 2010. ^ "Peer Review Panels – Purpose and Process" (PDF). USDA Forest Service. February 6, 2006. Retrieved October 4, 2010. ^ Sims Gerald K. (1989). "Student Peer Review in the Classroom: A Teaching and Grading Tool" (PDF). Journal of Agronomic Education. 18: 105–108. The review process was double-blind to provide anonymity for both authors and reviewers, but was otherwise handled in a fashion similar to that used by scientific journals ^ Liu, Jianguo; Pysarchik, Dawn Thorndike; Taylor, William W. (2002). "Peer Review in the Classroom" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (9): 824–829. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0824:PRITC]2.0.CO;2. ^ Mutual Learning Programme – Peer Reviews ^ Peer Review and Assessment in Social Inclusion—Evaluations par les pairs ^ "What is Scientific Peer Review?". ceparev.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 2017-03-30. ^ Medschool.ucsf.edu Archived August 14, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. ^ Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M; Dieckman; Herdtner; Dugan; Roche (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17–20. doi:10.1097/00006223-199811000-00008. PMID 9934106. CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link) ^ Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. (2006). "Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners". JAMA. 295 (15): 1801–8. doi:10.1001/jama.295.15.1801. PMID 16622142. ^ (page 131) ^ Ama-assn.org Archived March 6, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
v t e
Scholarly paper Review article Position paper Working paper Literature review
Other types of publication
Impact and ranking
Altmetrics Article-level metrics Bibliometrics Citation impact Citation index Journal ranking Eigenfactor h-index Impact factor SCImago Journal Rank Scientometrics
Indexes and search engines
Scientific writing Peer review Proceedings Grey literature Scientific literature Learned society Open research Open science data ORCID Electronic publishing Ingelfinger rule
Academic journals Scientific journals Open-access journals Academic databases and search engines University presses Style/formatting guides Category:Academic publishing Category:Sc