peer review

(redirected from Peer-review)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia.

peer review

n. an examination and evaluation of the performance of a professional or technician by a board or committee made up of people in the same occupation. This may arise in determining whether a person has been legitimately discharged, denied promotion or penalized by an employer, or is found to have failed to meet minimum standards of performance and is thus liable in a lawsuit claiming damages due to negligence.

References in periodicals archive ?
One area that affects both authors and reviewers is the length of the peer-review process.
In the face of the sometimes rather ugly state of peer-review ethics and etiquette, the Journal of Markets & Morality has established the policies detailed in the foregoing as an attempt to better steward this small plot of academia we are so privileged to tend.
Neha Vora and Tom Boellstorff, "Anatomy of an Article: The Peer-Review Process as Method," American Anthropologist 114, no.
Part I of this Note provides the common elements of medical peer-review statutes and subsequently compares those laws of the First Circuit states.
18) Part III discusses the First Circuit's position in relation to its sister circuits, provides suggestions as to how the First Circuit could formulate a federal common law medical peer-review privilege, and, alternatively, proposes congressional action.
22) For instance, participants are concerned about the competing interests of some groups' efforts to obtain peer-review information, such as by plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case, insurance companies making payment decisions, or other healthcare providers making referrals.
FEDERAL PROTECTION FOR THE MEDICAL PEER-REVIEW PRIVILEGE
32) For example, one federal district court in the Eighth Circuit applied the forum state's medical peer-review statute to preclude from discovery certain documents relating to the patient's care because the parties were diverse.
1) It provides interesting insights into the peer-review process as it currently exists, and it highlights some of the problems and shortcomings that warrant further consideration.
It is the first to combine user-contributed content with the ordering capabilities of a peer-review ranking system to make it easy for consumers to gain insight quickly from subjective content.
Peer-review validity lies in the ability to predict which articles or proposals will stimulate the most progress in a given field of study.
Though serious flaws mar the current system, the recent findings and proposals seem unlikely to spur a new wave of peer-review research and reform, says Michigan psychiatrist Adams.