...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology: RTP >Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias
【24h】

Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias

机译：21世纪科学同行评审：评估管理利益冲突，审查员和流程偏见的决策科学共识

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Science peer review plays an important role in the advancement and acceptance of scientific information, particularly when used to support decision-making. A model for science peer review is proposed here using a large, multi-tiered case study to engage a broader segment of the scientific community to support decision making on science matters, and to incorporate many of the design advantages of the two common forms of peer review (journal peer review, science advisory panels). This peer review consisted of a two-tiered structure consisting of seven panels (five review panels in Tier 1, two review panels in Tier 2), which focused on safety data for a modified risk tobacco product (MRTP). Experts from all over the world were invited to apply to one or more positions on seven peer review panels. 66 peer reviewers were selected from available applicants using objective metrics of their expertise, and for some panels based upon a consideration of panel diversity with respect to demographic parameters (e.g., geographic region, sector of employment, years of experience). All peer reviewers participated anonymously in which a third-party auditor was used to provide independent verification of their expertise. Peer reviewers were provided electronic links to all review material which included access to publications, reports, omics data, and histopathology slides, with topic-specific panels focusing on topic-specific components of the review package. Peer reviews consisted either of single-round, or multi-round (e.g., modified Delphi) format. Peer reviewer responses to the charge questions were collected via an online survey system, and were assembled into a database. Responses in the database were subject to analyses to assess the degree of favorability (i.e., supportive of the review material), degree of consensus, reproducibility of replicate panels, hidden sources of bias, and outlier response patterns. Conclusions: By careful consideration of science peer review design elements we have shown that: 1) panel participation can be broadened to include scientists who would otherwise not participate; 2) panel diversity can be managed in an unbiased manner without adverse impacts to panel expertise; 3) results obtained from independent concurrent panels are shown to be reproducible; and 4) there are benefits of collecting input from expert panels via a structured format (i.e., survey) to support characterization of consensus, identification of hidden sources of bias, and identification of potential outlier participants.
机译：科学同行评审在科学信息的进步和接受方面发挥着重要作用，特别是在习惯于支持决策时。在这里使用大型多层案例研究提出了一种科学同行评审模型，以实现对科学界的更广泛的细分市场，以支持科学事项的决策，并融入两种常见形式的同伴的许多设计优势评论（期刊PEER审查，科学咨询面板）。该同行评审由两层结构组成，由七个面板组成（第2层的第1层审查面板五个审查面板），其专注于修改风险烟草产品（MRTP）的安全数据。邀请来自世界各地的专家申请七个同行评审面板上的一个或多个职位。 66个同行评审员选自可用申请人，使用其专业知识的客观指标，并根据面板多样性关于人口统计参数（例如，地理区域，经验，经验，经验，经验多年的经验），为某些面板。所有同行评审员匿名参加，其中使用第三方审计员提供独立核查其专业知识。对等审阅者的电子链接提供给所有审查材料，其中包括访问出版物，报告，OMIC数据和组织病理学幻灯片，专题专题专注于审查包的特定主题组件。同行评审包括单轮或多轮（例如，修改的Delphi）格式。同行评审员通过在线调查系统收集对充电问题的响应，并组装到数据库中。数据库中的响应受到分析，以评估利益程度（即，支持审查材料），共识程度，复制面板的可重复性，隐藏的偏置来源以及异常值响应模式。结论：通过仔细考虑科学同行评审设计元素，我们表明：1）小组参与可以扩大，包括否则不会参加的科学家; 2）面板多样性可以以无偏见的方式管理，没有对面板专业知识的不利影响; 3）从独立并发面板获得的结果显示可重复; 4）通过结构化格式（即调查）收集来自专家小组的输入，以支持共识的表征，确定隐藏的偏见来源，以及识别潜在的异常参与者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号