Protecting And Preserving The Peer Review

Why it is important: According to American Nurse Association, “Peer review in nursing is the process by which practicing registered nurses systematically access, monitor, and make judgments about the quality of nursing care provided by peers as measured against professional standards of practice….Peer review implies that the nursing care delivered by a group of nurses or an individual nurse is evaluated by individuals of the same rank or standing according to established standards of practice” (ANA, 1988). Peer review is about nurses taking responsibility for their practice and about nurses evaluating nurses. It is about raising the standards of practice for all, and ultimately about providing the best care we can give for our patients. According

Peer-Review Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

You are right doing a peer review does ensure a better quality of work and allows for the writer to improve on the material being presented. In law enforcement having all work peer reviewed protect the writer from handing in documents that are filled with minimal to major mistakes. These mistakes if not identified can result in dismissal of a case or an acquittal at trial

A peer review is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the study of others who are experts in the same field. The purpose is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another’s work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field.

I have always found the peer review process to be beneficial on both ends, whether you are the writer or the reader, are being reviewed or are the reviewer. Having multiple sets of eyes proofread your paper should help more than hurt. It is your choice if you want to take the advice your peers gave. You have the option of not making any changes at all, so whether you decide to take the advice or not, it does not hurt to receive them. In Paper One, I found that peer reviewing others was a bit difficult because any comments made could be offending them. I felt that I would come off as criticizing the kind of person one is, instead of one's work since the assignment was to write about something that is personal.

This RN-BSN program has helped me to become a better nurse on so many levels. I am able to understand my patients but better than that I have developed more skills on how to assess and perform interventions on my patients, and to understand that those interventions are recommended by a base evidence practice. This week I look for peer review articles that relates to my capstone project to explain the importance of the topic for me and who will benefit from this research. It is very important that the articles are peer reviewed because they are reliable sources that can assist me as guides in the project. With this project I will put in practice the knowledge acquired in the research class in how to look, recognized, and analyze a peer review

This entry will discuss the DNP student peer review meeting with Santana St. Remy. This collaborative meeting took place on March 28, 2017. During this meeting, both doctoral students had the chance to work on their portfolio. The portfolio consisted of organizing non-clinical documents. The DNP students reviewed each other’s scholarly project content. Both students gave each other constructive criticism on their projects. Both students created an individualized plan/timeline for their projects and classes. They also worked on their portfolio and CV/resume. Although this was very time consuming for both students, it had to be done. Both students reviewed each other’s plan and found that it was realistic and would necessary adjustment throughout

I found the comments from Josh and the two peer reviews extremely helpful in this writing process. When I submitted my initial topic (the California drought), Josh made it very clear that it was too broad, and suggested I focus on a particular area and a particular crop. He later mentioned specific issues to discuss, such as if grapes are particularly water intensive and therefore more prone to the effects of the drought. Throughout the peer review process, there were three main suggestions that were brought to my attention. The first was to reorder several of my paragraphs to allow for better flow. When I went back and reread my paper, it became clear to me that the reviewer was correct in this assertion, and I accordingly made a change. The other reviewer was more concerned with some of the convoluted phrases I used and also said that my topic and concluding sentences were not as strong as they could be. She highlighted the certain places in which I needed to fix these issues, which I greatly appreciated. With regards to the phrasings, I found that in many cases my wording could be simplified. However, some of them seemed like more personal choices on her behalf, and those were left unchanged. As far as starting and concluding my paragraphs goes, I saw that at times my topic

After watching, “No One Writes Alone”, the required video, I understand the process of peer review better. From past experiences with peer review, I found that people tend to only correct the grammar portions of the work instead of actually analyzing the paper as a whole. Classmates tended to not really care about the statement you were trying to make or how the paper flowed. I like the peer view for the fact that it helps me improve as a writer and improves my thought process as well. Although, I dislike how some people tend to criticize your view-point instead of not focusing on what they are supposed to do. I also dislike how some people can come of overly negative to you. I feel peer review should come off as friendly as possible. In general,

The main question that the journal is trying answer is if professional autonomy is being compromised by peer review. The way the author designed the study has to do with the type of conversation styles used during each peer review studied as a means to quantify levels of autonomy retained or lost. Parsons and Freidson have often described the work group of professionals as “the work of self-regulating equals”, however ass the journal shows, one must question if practicing doctors are equal to bureaucratically focused doctors who work for a company and are lucking out for the best interest of their employer rather than an individual

The peer review process was critical towards the improvement of my work. For the first artifact, which was the standard essay, I drafted the essay and received feedback on my thesis via email from my professor Dr. Addcox as well as my roommate. The changes suggested to me clarified my paper and strengthened my argument. It was in my second artifact however that I realized the importance of getting an outside opinion on my work. For this assignment I had to create a new storyline for a video game we played in class. The storyline we created had to be a branching narrative and under the pressure of developing my own storyline my storyline was not a proper branching narrative. After developing my first draft, I had a collaborative conference with my professor (Dr. Addcox), where I received feedback which helped me incorporate a branching narrative structure into my idea. I then had a comprehensive peer review session with a classmate, which allowed me to refine my storyline and improve upon details.

University studies often require long hours of researching and sourcing articles for information and can be quite difficult. Students may try to time save to make progress go quicker by using Wikipedia however it should never be used or accepted as a referencing source for essay writing The inaccuracy of its content due to the lack of expert peer reviewing process makes it a liability for students to use for referencing though it does have a future potential for becoming a valuable source.

When looking at the peer review cycle one notices that the editor reviews the article before it is peer reviewed. This makes sense because even though the article is being reviewed in both the aspects of reviewing vary for an editor and for a peer review. One of the major differences between the two is that in the end no matter how many people peer review the article it is the editor that decides if the article gets published. Which is good because the editor not only supports

Primary consideration must be given to the proposed selection of the peer review model that the organization will choose to implement. It is not as simple as implying “Oh, yes we need a peer review process”. That would be like stating “Yes, the Golden State Warrior offense will work with the Los Angeles Lakers with the hiring of Luke Walton”. Different organizations with contrasting organizational and management culture, additionally contrasting personnel that comprise the team. What works for one facility may not be

At the facility where I work they have implemented peer review as part of the evaluation process for the nurses. It used to be anonymous, but now they want your name on the review. Personally, found that being anonymous one is more candid. There is a generalized form that one must answer along comments, if necessary. Have found that no one answers these correctly, which defeats the process of having them done. Anonymity is advantageous because it allows one to be factual in one’s observation. Peer reviews need a tool to give direction or facilitate the process. “Challenges with this tool are that staff believe that they are less able to assess the patient care questions because they do not frequently observe the peer’s care processes.