[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-170147-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-170147-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","scientific-peer-review-templates-introduction","Scientific Peer Review Templates - Introduction","","Scientific peer review templates for Health and Disability Ethics Committees guide researchers submitting applications for HDEC review. The materials outline how peer review supports ethical approval by assessing scientific validity through an informed, objective evaluation. Reviewers are instructed to consider research merit, study design and methods, feasibility and appropriate expertise, and how reviewer perspectives can be unbiased and equitable. The template also captures key submission fields and the final recommendation options.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/forms/","Forms",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/scientific-peer-review-templates-introduction/170147/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/scientific-peer-review-templates-introduction/170147.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"wps_ap_test_251126_0180","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-10-22","2026-09-01",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the purpose of scientific peer review in human research applications?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Scientific peer review evaluates the scientific validity of a human research project and is a vital step in project development. It is also a requirement of ethical approval and can improve development through objective expert input.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which criteria must peer reviewers assess to determine scientific validity?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Peer reviewers consider the relative merit of the research, the quality of the design and methods, and the feasibility of achieving the specific aims within the timeframe. The review also includes whether the study is appropriate for improving knowledge, treatments, services, health outcomes, or preventive interventions.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How should peer reviewers maintain objectivity and avoid bias?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Peer reviewers must deliver a balanced, considered analysis free of bias, equity, and fairness. Conflicts of interest can compromise objectivity, so reviewers are typically not materially connected to the researcher(s) in ways that could undermine objectivity or influence outcomes.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},170147,1790892400,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,113,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":115,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":110,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":121,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":26},8796095027276,"https://avatar.qwps.com/avatar/d3BzX2FwX3Rlc3RfMjUxMTI2XzAxODA=","SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW TEMPLATES\nHealth and Disability Ethics Committees\nINTRODUCTION\nThe following templates are intended as guidance for researchers who are submitting applications for HDEC review.\nThe reviewer templates listed below may be used or adapted to suit the particular circumstances. However, please keep within the NEAC informed peer review standards described in the guidelines and in the instruction to researchers and reviewers.\nFor more information on peer review please refer to \u0013 HYPERLINK \"https://neac.health.govt.nz/national-ethical-standards/part-two/9-research-development-and-design/\" \u0014Chapter 9 of the National Ethical Standards for Health and Disability Research and Quality Improvement\u0015.\n\u000f\nSCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW: Instructions to the researcher\nIntroduction\nScientific peer review (hereafter referred to as peer review) in the context of human research refers to the scientific validity of the research project and is a vital step in research project development. Peer review is a requirement of ethical approval and can enhance research project development in a variety of ways through providing an objective perspective from an informed reader.\nIt is a requirement of the Health and Disability Ethics Committees that all research projects involving humans undergo peer review.\nStandards for peer review\nPeer reviewers will consider the following points in order to determine scientific validity. Your proposal/application should ensure these are addressed.\nThe relative merit of the research: consideration of whether the proposed work is important, worthwhile and justifiable. The research should address a health issue that is important for health and/or society. The aims, research questions and hypotheses should build on and address gaps in existing knowledge.\nThe design and methods: consideration of the quality of study design and the robustness of the methods used. This might include study methodology, a description of sample recruitment and characteristics (including number, gender and ethnicity where relevant) and proposed methods of data analysis. An indication of timelines for the research should be included.\nThe feasibility of the research: consideration of whether the overall strategy, methodology and analyses are well reasoned and appropriate to achieve the specific aims of the project. The review will determine whether the research has the likelihood, on balance, of improving scientific knowledge, concepts, technical capacity or methods in the research field, or of contributing to better treatments, services, health outcomes or preventive interventions. The research should be achievable within the specified timeframe and the researcher/research team must have the appropriate experience and expertise to undertake the research.\nPeer review delivers an informed opinion: An effective peer review process provides perspectives from subject matter experts. It may be suitable for informed perspectives to be sought from individuals in the same organisation as the researcher, as long as the requirements of freedom from bias, equity and fairness can be met. An appropriate peer is one who can deliver an informed opinion on some or all of a proposal. Reviewers will be knowledgeable about the topic and/or context for the research, have the appropriate expertise relative to the breadth and scope of research under review and, as a result, will be well placed to make a statement as to whether the research in question has verifiable scientific merit. Peer review of scientific validity may include consideration of cultural relevance and appropriateness.\nPeer review delivers an objective opinion: Those acting in the capacity of reviewers are charged with delivering a balanced and considered analysis of the research. Generally, the success of the peer review process is determined by the extent to which these evaluations can be considered free of bias, equitable and fair. Objectivity can be compromised if peer reviewers have conflic","cbCaiexgjtIRN6RX","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiexgjtIRN6RX","docx",334490,"English","# Introduction\n## Instructions to the researcher\n## Standards for peer review\n## Scientific peer review form","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of scientific peer review in human research applications?\",\"answer\":\"Scientific peer review evaluates the scientific validity of a human research project and is a vital step in project development. It is also a requirement of ethical approval and can improve development through objective expert input.\"},{\"question\":\"Which criteria must peer reviewers assess to determine scientific validity?\",\"answer\":\"Peer reviewers consider the relative merit of the research, the quality of the design and methods, and the feasibility of achieving the specific aims within the timeframe. The review also includes whether the study is appropriate for improving knowledge, treatments, services, health outcomes, or preventive interventions.\"},{\"question\":\"How should peer reviewers maintain objectivity and avoid bias?\",\"answer\":\"Peer reviewers must deliver a balanced, considered analysis free of bias, equity, and fairness. Conflicts of interest can compromise objectivity, so reviewers are typically not materially connected to the researcher(s) in ways that could undermine objectivity or influence outcomes.\"}]","Scientific Peer Review Templates - Introduction | DOCX",1788268236]