Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wyoming, 2006. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Dec. 18, 2007). Includes bibliographical references (p. 228-238).

Peer review is considered the gold standard of scientific publishing. Trust in the traditional system of editor – blind-reviewer – author is still high, but it’s authority is in decline and alternative methods are on the rise. The current study investigates opinions of alternative peer review methods, the arguments for and against, and the reasons why academics are searching for new approaches. The opinions were analysed by applying qualitative content analysis to online discussions. The findings were interpreted using two different sociological theories: the Mertonian sociology of science and social constructivism. The results of the study show that the most discussed method was also the most traditional one: closed pre-publication peer review comprised of single blind, double-blind and open peer review (non blinded). Discussions of open peer review (both open publishing of reports and open discussions) were also common. All other alternative methods were discussed much less. But the discussions were lively and each method was discussed in both positive and negative terms. The reasons for preferring certain methods were also manifold, but dominant topics were bias and fairness, quality issues (regarding reviews and publications), issues concerning human resources and communication and exchange among people. The results of this study demonstrate that while ethical norms seems to be a scientific ideal, human nature makes it impossible to accomplish this goal.

Presentation given on October 27, 2016 at Data Reproducibility: Integrity and Transparency program as part of Open Access Week 2016. / Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus founded Retraction Watch in 2010. Unbeknownst to them, retractions had grown ten-fold in the previous decade. Oransky will discuss the reasons for that increase, whether fraud is on the rise, the growth of post-publication peer review, and other trends he and Marcus have seen as they've built a site that is now viewed by 150,000 people per month, and funded by philanthropies including the MacArthur and Arnold Foundations.

In higher education settings the peer review process is highly valued and used for evaluating the academic merits of grant proposals, journal submissions, academic promotions, monographs, text books, PhD thesis and a variety of other academic products. The purpose of this thesis was to evaluate the peer review process for awarding research grants used by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Large Grants Program and to propose strategies to address potential shortcomings of the system. This study also evaluated psychometric properties such as the reliabilities of various ratings that are part of the assessment process of the ARC Large grants Program. Data for the all grant applications submitted for the 1996 round of the Large Grants Program were provided by the ARC. In a variation to the typical peer review process, applicants were given an opportunity to nominate assessors to review their proposals. The results indicated that global ratings given by the researcher-nominated assessors were systematically higher and less reliable than those by panel-nominated external reviewers chosen by the ARC. The reliability of peer reviews is not adequate by most standards. A critical direction for future research is considering what strategies need to be put in place to improve the quality of the reviews. To improve the reliability it is recommended that researcher-nominated reviewers should not be used; that there should be more reviews per proposal and a smaller more highly selected core of reviewers should perform most of the reviews within each sub-discipline providing a greater control over error associated with individual reviewers / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

In higher education settings the peer review process is highly valued and used for evaluating the academic merits of grant proposals, journal submissions, academic promotions, monographs, text books, PhD thesis and a variety of other academic products. The purpose of this thesis was to evaluate the peer review process for awarding research grants used by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Large Grants Program and to propose strategies to address potential shortcomings of the system. This study also evaluated psychometric properties such as the reliabilities of various ratings that are part of the assessment process of the ARC Large grants Program. Data for the all grant applications submitted for the 1996 round of the Large Grants Program were provided by the ARC. In a variation to the typical peer review process, applicants were given an opportunity to nominate assessors to review their proposals. The results indicated that global ratings given by the researcher-nominated assessors were systematically higher and less reliable than those by panel-nominated external reviewers chosen by the ARC. The reliability of peer reviews is not adequate by most standards. A critical direction for future research is considering what strategies need to be put in place to improve the quality of the reviews. To improve the reliability it is recommended that researcher-nominated reviewers should not be used; that there should be more reviews per proposal and a smaller more highly selected core of reviewers should perform most of the reviews within each sub-discipline providing a greater control over error associated with individual reviewers / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

According to the empirical study, it is confirmed that physician satisfaction has great influence on patient satisfaction, and the physician¡Vpatient relationship could also affect health quality. The agreeableness and satisfaction of the healthcare providers (especially the physicians) to reimbursement system therefore should be emphasized especially with the intervention of health insurance. The objective of the study is to investigate the agreeableness and satisfaction of dentists to global budgets and their contributing factors. We survey dentists practiced within the Southern Branch and the Kao-Ping Branch regions of the National health insurance bureau with questionnaire. The primary result is as following: 1. The satisfaction of dentists to global budget after implementation: Male dentists are more satisfied than female detests. Dentists over 40 years old or with more than 15 years of practice experience are more satisfied. Solo practitioners are more satisfied than those who are employed or in partnership. Dentists practiced at Kaohsiung city have better stultification within the Kao-Ping Branch region; while the dentists, work in Jia-yi county are more satisfied than those at Tainan city within the Southern Branch region. Dentists with greater patient volume per day or longer business hours per week are less satisfied. Lastly, dentists whose service points claimed per month didn¡¦t decrease after the implementation of global budget are more satisfied with the system. 2. The agreeableness of dentists to global budget after implementation: Male, older dentists agree more with the reimbursement system. Dentists with more or equal service points claimed per month after implementation agree more with the global budget system. But those increase service hours per week are less agreeable to the system. Within the Kao-Ping Branch region, the dentists practice in Pun-hu county, are more agreeable than those at Kaohsiung city; those work in Jia-yi are more in agreement than those at Tainan within the Southern Branch region. Opened questionnaire indicated that surveyed dentists showed negative feedback on t the appropriateness, equity, and standardization of peer review. They further suggested the operation of dental association should be transparent, and the names of the dental clinics should be made known to the public if there¡¦s fraud. Besides, they also made some constructive suggestions such as the establishment of the public record of the oral cavity examination, periodic oral examination, and improvement of professional medical technology. Theses suggestions should be useful to the dental association for professional and quality improvement, standard protocol development and to the Bureau of the National Health Insurance for policy evaluation.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 51-55). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2002. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 51-55). Also available on the Internet.

The research journal especially in marketing, is now not only the primary communication method, but is also used to evaluate an academic's research contribution. Measuring the quality of research journals has also become more complex as a result of the rapid increase in the number of journals published. In marketing research, scientists have professed the use of sophisticated or more sensitive techniques yet little has been done to improve the measurement of research journals. This thesis investigates the use of alternative measurement techniques to explore this important aspect of the academic environment. Historically two dominant methodologies have been used to measure the quality ofjournals: Peer review and Citation Analysis. However these methods have been criticised and academics have been sceptical of the results, taking the opinion that these methods create, bias in the results. Previous methods have also taken a one-dimensional view of journal quality with little time devoted to uncovering the criteria that governs that quality. The research applied marketing methodologies that combined qualitative and quantitative research techniques to explore the problem. Four critical research questions were examined in this study. What are the important elements of journal research standing? 38 items were found to be important elements ofjoumal research standing. Is journal research standing a multi-dimensional construct? Three underlying dimensions represented the construct journal research standing, these were Reputation, Reviewing Standards and Content Quality. Do academics acknowledge the multiple dimensions of journal research standing? Academics acknowledged the -differences -between dimensions for ten selected marketing journals. What moderating factors affect academic opinions of journal research standing? Academic attitudes towards a joutnal's research stdtiding are moderated by their country of origin, familiarity and research fit. Attitudes towards a journal may also be moderated when academics have a paper rejected from that particular journal.

Thesis (Ph. D., Education)--University of Idaho, May 2008. / Major professor: Lee Ostrom. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 84-90). Also available online (PDF file) by subscription or by purchasing the individual file.