1. Themes that Cut Across Disciplines: Quality Control and Research Methods Faina Linkov, PhD Research Assistant Professor University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute The journey of quality control in the Supercourse The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step

2. Overview Overview the history of quality control and peer review Quality control on Amazon.com Quality control in the Supercourse: QC on PPT lectures is at the core of what we do Supercourse studies of quality control Our conclusions and future directions

3. What do scientists have in common? Quest for discovery Common research methods, such as statistics Journal article format Quality control mechanisms Peer review: is it the same as quality?

4. History of Quality: Early times 384-322 BCE-Aristotle and the birth of peer review 854-931 “Ethics of the Physician” by Ishap bin Ali Al Rahwi-first documented description of peer review in Medicine

5. Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions- Originally edited by Henry Oldenburg 1665 First peer reviewed journal

6. Typewriter: the tool that fueled peer review process 1890’s

7. Quality control criteria of the past Albert Einstein, 1905 His famous work, Annus Mirabilis, was not peer reviewed!

8. History of quality continued 19th century – birth of quality control discipline 1950 - W. Edwards Deming and statistical quality control 1970’s- Total Quality Management (TQM)

9. What is Quality “ Doing the right thing right, right away” W. Edwards Deming, 1982 “a measure of goodness that relates to the intended use of a product and the expectations customers have concerning this product” Barkman, 1989

10. Traditional Quality control of Scientific Materials: Peer Review “A peer-reviewed journal is one that has submitted most of its published articles for review by experts who are not part of the editorial staff” Vancouver Group of Editors

11. Is peer review the same as quality? South Korean cloning scandal, alongside with other examples, demonstrate that peer review is not perfect

12. Peer review congress: finding new ways or fixing the old system?

13. The State of QC for PowerPoint on the Web Over 7,600,000 PowerPoint files on the Internet give us unique new ways to do QC Only 3383 lectures tested for QC-Supercourse We published almost all articles concerning the state QC of PowerPoint on the web

14. Amazon.com: the first website that allowed to post a book review

15. PowerPoint lectures No information on quality control for PowerPoint lectures on-line There is a growing need to establish quality control for Scientific PPT lectures on Line Migration of 7 million lectures to the web by 2008 Establishment of “Quality Circles” in the Supercourse: John Last, Vint Cerf, and many others

16. Progress Report in the Supercourse Over 14000 lecture reviews were obtained in the last 6 years Lecture review forms utilize Likert like scales, regularly used for the evaluation of educational programs and amazon, ebay, consumers reports..

17. Space for written comments Some of the URLs have changed since the lecture was developed. It would be helpful if that was corrected, so you could actually see the information referred to. Is there any text(s) that you could recommend for epidemiology, i.e., a basic text, an intermediate text, and an advanced text?

18. My dissertation, 2005 First evaluation of peer review mechanisms for PPT lectures on-line

19. 7 expert reviewers from 6 countries

20. Results and conclusions of this research Lectures were rated highly by experts and non- experts People are primarily rating at the upper tail of the distribution There is a poor agreement among reviewers (very low Kappa statistic) The role of personal background in the quality of the peer review is not clear and needs to be further investigated There is a pressing need for scientific evaluation of PPT lectures on the web

21. Implications for the Supercourse of Science? There is no consistency about the use of peer review on the web Utility of peer review strategies for PPT lectures is not clear New approaches will be developed for the Supercourse of Science. Shall we allow disciplines to decide the QC techniques which are most applicable for their fields? There is a need to build a science of QC

22. Where do we go from here for the development of quality control mechanisms in the Supercourse? Continuous quality improvement (CQI): not a destination, but a journey

23. Supercourse aim: To scientifically develop a system of QC on the web by making multiple measures available Power of the Internet makes the development of the Science of QC possible.

24. Moving beyond peer review “… We had great difficulty in finding any real hard evidence of the system’s effectiveness, which is disappointing, as peer review is the cornerstone of editorial policies worldwide” Tom Jeffersen

25. Suggested Quality Control Mechanisms for the Supercourse of Science: Multiple Measures a) Expert editorial board b) Screening to identify non-appropriate lectures, as done in nature and BMJ c) Five star system (or Priority Score) similar to that in Amazon.com d) Opinion of experts (professors) e) Personal Characteristics of authors (rank, university, citations) f) Web statistics for utilization of lectures: hits, links, Page Rankings, etc. g) Key note speeches h) Publications and citations from Google Scholar i) Model similar to NIH style review

26. Editorial Board (in formation) John Last, MD – father of modern environmental epidemiology Peter Greenwald, MD, PhD - leading cancer control specialist, NCI Paul Zimmet, MD - leading diabetes research in Australia Dr. Steven N. Blair -leader in exercise science Plus 8 others

27. Screening to eliminate poor quality lecture Key criteria for lecture rejection in the parent Supercourse project Not related to prevention Inaccurate Out of date Incomplete

28. Amazon.com like system Customer Reviews 42 Reviews Average Customer Review (42 customer reviews)42 customer reviews Share your thoughts with other customers 5 star5 star: (42) 4 star: (0) 3 star: (0) 2 star: (0) 1 star: (0)

29. Mean Lecture Scores in the Supercourse First 2000 surveys Mean Score: 4.12

30. Personal Characteristics of Authors (rank, university, citations) 1288 authors in the Supercourse 30 authors from Harvard 8 authors from Johns Hopkins 100 authors from Pitt 7 authors from Columbia

31. Web statistics Total number of page views 41,406 (since 2003) Viewed in 145 countries Translated into 13 Languages First Google Page Rank for “lecture on prevention” Over 70 websites linking to the lecture

32. Keynote speeches Someone chosen for keynote address is expected to give a good lecture

33. NIH Model and Continuous Quality Monitoring Triage Priority Scores Resubmission Submission Supercourse Model: Continuous Quality Control

34. Google model for QC: Opportunities for exploration? Do not exclude anything, but give it a rank Development of search mechanisms where you can find anything you like

35. Why do this research? “I believe this lecture provides simple, understandable, thorough and consolidated information of the subject. This is actual service to the humanity” From the evaluator of the Supercourse lectures

36. Conclusions There is a need to define the science of QC for online lectures Scientists need to be able to choose what they want in terms of QC mechanisms, including peer review and other systems Science needs to replicate success of industry in the area of QC Traditional approaches (such as peer review) may not be bad, but with Internet technologies much more can be done

37. Vision for the Supercourse of Science Development of novel QC systems for the Supercourse of science. Need to systematically and continuously evaluate QC systems Upfront QC systems and information collection

38. Thank you! Please e-mail your ideas to super1@pitt.edu super1@pitt.edu