对基金项目开展网络同行评议的几点思考

国家自然科学基金委生命科学部六处(畜牧兽医与水产和动物学科)通过对2003年基金项目开展网上评议,使我们真正体会到网上评议的优越性,不仅大大提高工作效率,还使同行专家评审意见全文反馈终于成为可能。但是,若要使网上评议更加科学、公正,除了进一步完善专家库外,国家自然科学基金委还需建设一个“基金项目评议的信息资源链接平台”和“专家评议的反评估网络数据库”,从而完善同行评议网络体系。     

Principles and practice in ethical review of animal experiments across Europe: summary of the report of a FELASA working group on ethical evaluation of animal experiments

This paper summarizes a more detailed report produced by the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA 2005), which describes and explores a set of principles for the conduct of ethical review of laboratory animal use. It presents a synopsis of results from a questionnaire that elicited information on how each of 20 countries represented in FELASA currently approaches such ethical review. This information suggests that, although local practices differ, there is an emerging consensus on the key elements that any ethical review process should involve. Drawing on the questionnaire findings, this summary also includes a brief discussion to support and amplify a series of recommendations, covering the objectives of ethical review; legal requirements; the scope of work reviewed and the 'level' at which review is approached; general principles for the organization of ethical review processes; the factors considered in the review; needs for ongoing review after initial authorization; participants in the review process; wider impacts of the review process; and strategies that can help to ensure quality and consistency of review outcomes. For further information and examples of current practice, as well as more detailed discussion to support the recommendations, readers are urged to refer to the complete report, available at http://www.lal.org.uk/pdffiles/FELASA_ethics_FULL_Report. pdf or via: http://www.felasa.eu/recommendations.htm.     

Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan

The ethical review process is an important component of contemporary health research worldwide. Sudan started an ethical review process rather late in comparison with other countries. In this study, we evaluate the structure and functions of existing ethics review committees. We also explore the knowledge and attitudes of Sudanese researchers toward the ethical review process and their experience with existing ethics review committees. There are four ethics review committees in the country; these committees have no institutional regulations to govern their functions. Furthermore, Sudan also lacks national guidelines. Ethical reviews are carried out primarily for studies seeking international funding and are almost always governed by the funding agencies' requirements. Nearly half of respondents (46.3%) knew about the existence of research ethics committees in Sudan. Researchers reported a variety of experiences with the ethical review process; most of them were unable to define 'ethics committee'.     

Aspects of audit. 1. The background.

Methods of reviewing health care already exist in Britain, but the debate continues about how practical and acceptable such a review is. The many different terms used to describe review only confuse the issue. "Audit" is a useful term for describing the review of medical work by medical people. This can be divided into "internal audit," or peer review, and "external audit"--that is, review by organisations outside hospital and general practice. The concepts of internal and external audit have a great impact upon the attitudes held by the medical profession about audit. The shortcomings of audit by the professional standards review organisations in the United States are not inevitable in Britian.     

The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

Peer review is pivotal to science and academia, as it represents a widely accepted strategy for ensuring quality control in scientific research. Yet, the peer‐review system is poorly adapted to recent changes in the discipline and current societal needs. We provide historical context for the cultural lag that governs peer review that has eventually led to the system's current structural weaknesses (voluntary review, unstandardized review criteria, decentralized process). We argue that some current attempts to upgrade or otherwise modify the peer‐review system are merely sticking‐plaster solutions to these fundamental flaws, and therefore are unlikely to resolve them in the long term. We claim that for peer review to be relevant, effective, and contemporary with today's publishing demands across scientific disciplines, its main components need to be redesigned. We propose directional changes that are likely to improve the quality, rigour, and timeliness of peer review, and thereby ensure that this critical process serves the community it was created for.     

Will technology trample peer review in ecology? Ongoing issues and potential solutions

The classical view of peer review is that it is our primary process for assessing and judging whether research results should be published in a scholarly journal. However, the increased pressure to publish and technological developments are transforming peer review such that it is becoming a system that judges where work is published rather than whether the research is publishable (a ‘where rather than if’ process). Ecology is a field in which publication numbers puts a particular pressure on the review system. In this forum piece, I summarize the issues with the current publication system and discuss how technology is changing it, while suggesting solutions for important prior and ongoing issues with the peer review system. The view explored here is that technological developments (e.g. ease of creating journals, internet sites, storage, data generation, sharing of data and analytical code) will not eliminate peer review per se but will allow for a new set of parameters in which ethics and the optimal use of public funding will play a vital role in the evolution of the review process. Synthesis The number of papers and journals in Ecology has increased dramatically in the past decade. I present a critical overview of our review system and proposes that pressure to publish and technological developments have transformed peer review into a system that decides “where rather than if” papers are publishable. While reviewing the current pressures and factors playing a vital role in the evolution of the review and publication systems, I propose potential solutions to deal with current and future challenges to the peer review and publication systems.     

Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes

Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process.Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures.We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications.The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time.These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.     

Implementing code review in the scientific workflow: Insights from ecology and evolutionary biology

Code review increases reliability and improves reproducibility of research. As such, code review is an inevitable step in software development and is common in fields such as computer science. However, despite its importance, code review is noticeably lacking in ecology and evolutionary biology. This is problematic as it facilitates the propagation of coding errors and a reduction in reproducibility and reliability of published results. To address this, we provide a detailed commentary on how to effectively review code, how to set up your project to enable this form of review and detail its possible implementation at several stages throughout the research process. This guide serves as a primer for code review, and adoption of the principles and advice here will go a long way in promoting more open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.     

几种数量综述方法的介绍与比较

综述是科学研究中的一种重要方法,数量综述较传统的叙述性综述有许多优多,文章介绍并比较了目前在科学研究中比较流行的几数量综述方法.     

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy

Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other''s work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors.     

Reviewing Literature in Bioethics Research: Increasing Rigour in Non‐Systematic Reviews

The recent interest in systematic review methods in bioethics has highlighted the need for greater transparency in all literature review processes undertaken in bioethics projects. In this article, I articulate features of a good bioethics literature review that does not aim to be systematic, but rather to capture and analyse the key ideas relevant to a research question. I call this a critical interpretive literature review. I begin by sketching and comparing three different types of literature review conducted in bioethics scholarship. Then, drawing on Dixon‐Wood's concept of critical interpretive synthesis, I put forward six features of a good critical interpretive literature review in bioethics: answering a research question, capturing the key ideas relevant to the research question, analysing the literature as a whole, generating theory, not excluding papers based on rigid quality assessment criteria, and reporting the search strategy.     

Review of clinical studies of CA 27.29 in breast cancer management.

A critical review of CA 27.29 and CA 15-3 is performed in this paper. A review of the literature is undertaken. A review of the FDA submissions for 27.29 for both early stage and monitoring metastatic breast cancer patients is reviewed.     

Instituting a research ethic: chilling and cautionary tales

The ethical review of research on human beings, and indeed the ethical review of broader ranges of human activity, is a growth industry. I want to look here at the ethical review of research on humans and raise some questions about the direction it is taking. I am pessimistic about where the institutions that we have set up are leading us and I want to sound a warning note and suggest some changes that are needed in the practice of ethical review.     

Improving product introduction through effective design reviews

The design review process is a part of the manufacturer's due diligence in developing a safe and effective product. Design review provides early and on-going independent feedback to developers. By adopting a proactive review process, design improvements can be pursued at an optimum time in the product development effort, i.e., when it will cost less to implement changes and when these changes may have the greatest impact. Effective implementation of the design review requirement will lead to better medical products and improved product introduction results.     

Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient test of the predictive validity of NIH peer review would be an examination of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications produced from funded projects. The present study used a large dataset to examine the rationale for such a study, to determine if it would satisfy the requirements for a test of predictive validity. The results show significant restriction of range in the applications selected for funding. Furthermore, those few applications that are funded with slightly worse peer review scores are not selected at random or representative of other applications in the same range. The funding institutes also negotiate with applicants to address issues identified during peer review. Therefore, the peer review scores assigned to the submitted applications, especially for those few funded applications with slightly worse peer review scores, do not reflect the changed and improved projects that are eventually funded. In addition, citation metrics by themselves are not valid or appropriate measures of scientific impact. The use of bibliometric indices on their own to measure scientific impact would likely increase the inefficiencies and problems with replicability already largely attributed to the current over-emphasis on bibliometric indices. Therefore, retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH.     

Review of cytologic slides from the national women's hospital, New Zealand, cohort of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 diagnosed in 1955-1976

OBJECTIVE: To review cytologic slides, mostly at least 25 years old, from women attending National Women's Hospital, Auckland, who had been diagnosed histologically with cervical carcinoma in situ in 1955-1976. STUDY DESIGN: Smears comprised all those from the 2 years following diagnosis as well as all subsequent smears for women who developed "microinvasive" or invasive lower genital tract cancer. The Victorian Cytology Service performed the review using the Australian Modified Bethesda System. was 0.97. RESULTS: Nine percent of 4,930 retrieved slides were technically unsatisfactory. Original (Papanicolaou) and review coding were available for 4,477 slides. Using categories of equivalence, smears coded as normal (original, 59.2%; review, 61.4%) or showing possible or definite high grade abnormalities (original, 25.9%; review, 29.6%) were found in similar proportions. The kappa statistic (0.79) indicated a high level of agreement between original and review coding. In comparison with the review, the sensitivity of the original coding in detecting high grade abnormalities was 0.80, while the ability of the original assessment to categorize smears as not high grade (specificity) CONCLUSION: This comprehensive review found nearly all archived cytology slides to be technically satisfactory and the broad diagnostic cytologic categories from earlier periods (apart from benign lesions) to be concordant with those currently used.     

It Is Time to Re‐Evaluate the Peer Review Process for Preclinical Research

Problems in peer review, the backbone of maintaining high standards in scientific publishing, have led to wide spread discontent within the scientific community. Training in the peer review process and a simpler format to assist in decision making are possible courses to improve and expedite the process of peer review and scientific publishing.     

Gene transfer: regulatory issues and their impact on the clinical investigator and the good manufacturing production facility

The first human gene-transfer study was submitted to the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) in 1988, thus initiating a new era in clinical research. As per the RAC Website (last updated 22nd November 2002), almost 550 human gene-transfer studies have been submitted to the RAC. However, there are currently no licensed gene-therapy products available in the USA. The natural evolution of the review process to accommodate these novel protocols, as well as the death of Jesse Gelsinger in 1999, have led to significant changes in the initial and ongoing review of gene-transfer studies. However, the basic framework of the review process remains unchanged.Gene-transfer protocols require oversight by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), and the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Such oversight includes both initial review of the protocol and ongoing review of the study through the review of annual reports, adverse events, and proposed amendments to the study. In addition to such review of the protocol, the product itself is required by the FDA to be prepared under current good manufacturing practices (cGMP). This article discusses both regulatory oversight and current GMP issues in depth.