Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The article offers insights on the peer-review process as it relates to scientific and technical reports used to inform regulatory decisions. Used effectively, peer review is a powerful tool for advising organizational leaders whether the scientific foundations of their decisions can be expected to withstand scrutiny as rule-making products move through interagency reviews, public comment and stakeholder processes, congressional oversight, and judicial review. The emphasis is "heads up" rather than "how to." That is, without delving into myriad technical and administrative details, the discussion highlights nine fundamental "leadership responsibilities" that determine the nature and course of peer review.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00727.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!