Preferred Label : Peer Review;
NCIt related terms : peer review process;
NCIt definition : A scholarly process that subjects an author's work or ideas to the scrutiny of one
or more others who are experts in the field. These referees each return an evaluation
of the work, including suggestions for improvement. Evaluations usually include an
explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript or proposal. A chief rationale
for peer review is that rarely is just one person, or one closely working group, able
to spot every mistake or weakness in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily
because these deficiencies represent needles in a haystack, but because in a new and
creative and perhaps eclectic intellectual product, any one of these opportunities
for improvement may stand out only to someone with a particular expertise and/or history
of experience. Therefore showing a work to various others increases the probability
that the weakness will be identified and fixed.;
Alternative definition : NCI-GLOSS: The process by which original articles and grants written by researchers
are evaluated for technical and scientific quality and correctness by other experts
in the same field.; MRCT-Ctr: Evaluation by independent experts. (https://mrctcenter.org/glossaryterm/peer-review/); CDISC-GLOSS: Primarily, the critical assessment by experts (who are usually not part
of the editorial staff) of manuscripts submitted to journals. NOTE: Because unbiased,
independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including
scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process.
[After ICMJE Recommendations];
Codes from synonyms : CDR0000561727;
Origin ID : C16963;
UMLS CUI : C0030768;
Automatic exact mappings (from CISMeF team)
- False automatic mappings
- Semantic type(s)
- concept_is_in_subset
