AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics.

Per H. Halvorsen, Indra J. Das, Martin Fraser, D. Jay Freedman, Robert E. Rice, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, E. Ishmael Parsai, T. Tydings Robin, Bruce R. Thomadsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This report provides guidelines for a peer review process between two clinical radiation oncology physicists. While the Task Group's work was primarily focused on ensuring timely and productive independent reviews for physicists in solo practice, these guidelines may also be appropriate for physicists in a group setting, particularly when dispersed over multiple separate clinic locations. To ensure that such reviews enable a collegial exchange of professional ideas and productive critique of the entire clinical physics program, the reviews should not be used as an employee evaluation instrument by the employer. Such use is neither intended nor supported by this Task Group. Detailed guidelines are presented on the minimum content of such reviews, as well as a recommended format for reporting the findings of a review. In consideration of the full schedules faced by most clinical physicists, the process outlined herein was designed to be completed in one working day.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)50-64
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
Volume6
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiation Oncology
Peer Review
Oncology
Medical Oncology
Physics
Guidelines
Radiation
physics
Private Practice
radiation
Practice Guidelines
Appointments and Schedules
schedules
format
evaluation
Personnel

Cite this

Halvorsen, P. H., Das, I. J., Fraser, M., Freedman, D. J., Rice, R. E., Ibbott, G. S., ... Thomadsen, B. R. (2005). AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 6(4), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.2026.25362

AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. / Halvorsen, Per H.; Das, Indra J.; Fraser, Martin; Freedman, D. Jay; Rice, Robert E.; Ibbott, Geoffrey S.; Parsai, E. Ishmael; Robin, T. Tydings; Thomadsen, Bruce R.

In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2005, p. 50-64.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Halvorsen, PH, Das, IJ, Fraser, M, Freedman, DJ, Rice, RE, Ibbott, GS, Parsai, EI, Robin, TT & Thomadsen, BR 2005, 'AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics.', Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.2026.25362
Halvorsen, Per H. ; Das, Indra J. ; Fraser, Martin ; Freedman, D. Jay ; Rice, Robert E. ; Ibbott, Geoffrey S. ; Parsai, E. Ishmael ; Robin, T. Tydings ; Thomadsen, Bruce R. / AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics. In: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2005 ; Vol. 6, No. 4. pp. 50-64.
@article{5ba60c9eda814616b7d0847fc718c7f6,
title = "AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics.",
abstract = "This report provides guidelines for a peer review process between two clinical radiation oncology physicists. While the Task Group's work was primarily focused on ensuring timely and productive independent reviews for physicists in solo practice, these guidelines may also be appropriate for physicists in a group setting, particularly when dispersed over multiple separate clinic locations. To ensure that such reviews enable a collegial exchange of professional ideas and productive critique of the entire clinical physics program, the reviews should not be used as an employee evaluation instrument by the employer. Such use is neither intended nor supported by this Task Group. Detailed guidelines are presented on the minimum content of such reviews, as well as a recommended format for reporting the findings of a review. In consideration of the full schedules faced by most clinical physicists, the process outlined herein was designed to be completed in one working day.",
author = "Halvorsen, {Per H.} and Das, {Indra J.} and Martin Fraser and Freedman, {D. Jay} and Rice, {Robert E.} and Ibbott, {Geoffrey S.} and Parsai, {E. Ishmael} and Robin, {T. Tydings} and Thomadsen, {Bruce R.}",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1120/jacmp.2026.25362",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "50--64",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - AAPM Task Group 103 report on peer review in clinical radiation oncology physics.

AU - Halvorsen, Per H.

AU - Das, Indra J.

AU - Fraser, Martin

AU - Freedman, D. Jay

AU - Rice, Robert E.

AU - Ibbott, Geoffrey S.

AU - Parsai, E. Ishmael

AU - Robin, T. Tydings

AU - Thomadsen, Bruce R.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - This report provides guidelines for a peer review process between two clinical radiation oncology physicists. While the Task Group's work was primarily focused on ensuring timely and productive independent reviews for physicists in solo practice, these guidelines may also be appropriate for physicists in a group setting, particularly when dispersed over multiple separate clinic locations. To ensure that such reviews enable a collegial exchange of professional ideas and productive critique of the entire clinical physics program, the reviews should not be used as an employee evaluation instrument by the employer. Such use is neither intended nor supported by this Task Group. Detailed guidelines are presented on the minimum content of such reviews, as well as a recommended format for reporting the findings of a review. In consideration of the full schedules faced by most clinical physicists, the process outlined herein was designed to be completed in one working day.

AB - This report provides guidelines for a peer review process between two clinical radiation oncology physicists. While the Task Group's work was primarily focused on ensuring timely and productive independent reviews for physicists in solo practice, these guidelines may also be appropriate for physicists in a group setting, particularly when dispersed over multiple separate clinic locations. To ensure that such reviews enable a collegial exchange of professional ideas and productive critique of the entire clinical physics program, the reviews should not be used as an employee evaluation instrument by the employer. Such use is neither intended nor supported by this Task Group. Detailed guidelines are presented on the minimum content of such reviews, as well as a recommended format for reporting the findings of a review. In consideration of the full schedules faced by most clinical physicists, the process outlined herein was designed to be completed in one working day.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645298523&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645298523&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1120/jacmp.2026.25362

DO - 10.1120/jacmp.2026.25362

M3 - Article

C2 - 16421500

VL - 6

SP - 50

EP - 64

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 4

ER -