TITLE

Web Quality Control for Lectures: Supercourse and Amazon.com

AUTHOR(S)
Linkov, Faina; LaPorte, Ronald; Lovalekar, Mita; Dodani, Sunita
PUB. DATE
December 2005
SOURCE
Croatian Medical Journal;2005, Vol. 46 Issue 6, p875
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Peer review has been at the corner stone of quality control of the biomedical journals in the past 300 years. With the emergency of the Internet, new models of quality control and peer review are emerging. However, such models are poorly investigated. We would argue that the popular system of quality control used in Amazon.com offers a way to ensure continuous quality improvement in the area of research communications on the Internet. Such system is providing an interesting alternative to the traditional peer review approaches used in the biomedical journals and challenges the traditional paradigms of scientific publishing. This idea is being explored in the context of Supercourse, a library of 2,350 prevention lectures, shared for free by faculty members from over 150 countries. Supercourse is successfully utilizing quality control approaches that are similar to Amazon.com model. Clearly, the existing approaches and emerging alternatives for quality control in scientific communications needs to be assessed scientifically. Rapid explosion of internet technologies could be leveraged to produce better, more cost effective systems for quality control in the biomedical publications and across all sciences.
ACCESSION #
19141845

 

Related Articles

  • Improving `medical necessity' acceptance by health care providers and consumers. Hepps, S.A. // Physician Executive;Jul1994, Vol. 20 Issue 7, p22 

    Discusses the need for health care providers and consumers to accept negative authorization decisions when principles of continuous quality improvement are implemented on the authorization process. Problems brought about by the establishment of peer review and authorization agency medical...

  • Evidence on peer review--scientific quality control or smokescreen? Goldbeck-Wood, Sandra // BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition);01/02/99, Vol. 318 Issue 7175, p44 

    Discusses the importance of the scientific quality control process in peer review. Information on peer review process; Beneficiaries of the peer review system; Speculations on quality review; Major challenges in the process.

  • Peer reviewing -- principles and practice. Baker, Michael J. // Marketing Review;Spring2008, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p25 

    As a result of developments in information technology (IT), major changes are taking place in the way in which we communicate with one another and the quantity of information available. The publication of the results of academic research has not escaped these changes and moves to publication...

  • QI brings improvements in Medicare.  // Family Practice Management;May1999, Vol. 6 Issue 5, p21 

    Highlights findings of a research on medical care quality improvement projects. Effectiveness of Medicare peer-review organizations in decreasing costs and improving care provided to Medicare beneficiaries; Health Care Financing Administration's financing of quality improvement organizations.

  • Peer Assessment of Accounting Practice. Gabriel, E. Ann; Roberts, Glenn A.; Stephens, Ray G. // Ohio CPA Journal;Apr-Jun2002, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p44 

    Focuses on the evolution of peer review of accounting firms in the U.S. Emphasis of a system review on the quality control of firms performing audits; Focus of an engagement review on specific engagements and related financial statements (FS); Intention of a report review to improve FS and...

  • Royal Society investigates how research results are made public.  // Veterinary Record: Journal of the British Veterinary Association;9/6/2003, Vol. 153 Issue 10, p282 

    Reports on the launch of the investigation into the ways scientific research results are made public. Controversy on how and when scientists communicate findings; Query on the need for internal checks prior to publication; Creation of a working group to examine the criticisms of the peer review...

  • Out with peer review.  // Cancer Nursing Practice;Sep2011, Vol. 10 Issue 7, p9 

    In this article the authors discuss the origin of peer review in 1990s, and the need for sufficient evidence to ensure the standards set by the peer review guidelines are met. They state that this process is bulky and unusable, and uses an undue amount of funds, and not to mention, it is...

  • Report: Peer groups save Medicare millions.  // AHA News;02/22/99, Vol. 35 Issue 7, p7 

    Focuses on the findings of a report by the American Health Quality Association which showed the financial benefits of projects by peer review organizations. Overall value of money that was saved from the projects; Decrease in unnecessary heart procedures.

  • The Dynamics Within Peer Review. Loevy, Hannelore // Pediatric Dentistry;Sep/Oct2009, Vol. 31 Issue 5, p374 

    The author reflects on the peer review process. She states that the journal selects reviewers for their scientific rigor so to ensure the scientific merit and quality of the published papers. She mentions that reviewers often have differing opinions on submitted papers and that the editor is the...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics