<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://escholarship.org/uc/ucsfemergmed_rw/rss"/>
    <ttl>720</ttl>
    <title>Recent ucsfemergmed_rw items</title>
    <link>https://escholarship.org/uc/ucsfemergmed_rw/rss</link>
    <description>Recent eScholarship items from Recent Work</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 12:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
    <item>
      <title>A normative model of peer review: qualitative assessment of manuscript  reviewers’ attitudes towards peer review</title>
      <link>https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p90p67x</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Objective: Peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of quality  research, yet little is known of the values, beliefs and attitudes of peer reviewers towards  the process of peer review. This study elicits reviewer beliefs about the process in order  to produce a normative model of peer review.     Methods and Findings: The 72 subjects were experienced reviewers at Annals of  Emergency Medicine and had completed at least 5 reviews in the past 2 years.    Subjects participated in 40 minute structured telephone interviews focusing on reviewer  attitudes, beliefs and values towards the process of peer review.    Subject responses  were coded and categorized using grounded theory to produce a qualitative profile of  reviewers' attitudes towards peer review and generate a normative model of the peer  review process. This model was found to closely adhere to conventionally held beliefs   2  about the process of peer review.  However, within it were revealed...</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p90p67x</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>
        <name>Tercier, John</name>
      </author>
      <author>
        <name>Callaham, Michael L.</name>
      </author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Peer Review: Consensus and Contradiction, a Qualitative Approach</title>
      <link>https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2s42m2kw</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Manuscript peer review is considered crucial to the selection and publication of  quality scientific research, however, the practice is being increasingly challenged as a  non-standardized process of unknown scientific validity with substantial weaknesses.  Scientific disciplines appear to be confronted by a process of limited efficacy, resistant to  rational maneuvers for its improvement, which yet continues to receive strong support  from its practitioners. When a practice’s efficacy in achieving its goals is questionable  and yet the practice persists, questions of its social functions arise which can only be  addressed by qualitative research. This paper describes a normative model of peer  review based on a qualitative profile of the attitudes of 72 peer reviewers towards the  practice of manuscript peer review (obtained from extensive structured interviews).  Masked by consensus amongst respondents about methods and goals were concerns  centering on a series of contradictions...</description>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2s42m2kw</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>
        <name>Tercier, John</name>
      </author>
      <author>
        <name>Callaham, Michael L.</name>
      </author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
