Thinking collaboratively about the peer-review process for journal- article publication

In this conversation, Kevin K. Kumashiro shares his reflections on challenges to publishing anti-oppressive research in educational journals. He then invites eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals - William F. Pinar, Elizabeth Graue, Carl A. Grant, Maenette K. P. Benham, Ronald H. Heck, James Joseph Scheurich, Allan Luke, and Carmen Luke - to critique and expand on his analysis. Kumashiro begins the conversation by describing his own experiences submitting manuscripts to educational research journals and receiving comments by anonymous reviewers and journal editors. He suggests three ways to rethink the collaborative potential of the peer-review process: as constructive, as multilensed, and as situated. The eight current and former editors of leading educational research journals then critique and expand Kumashiro's analysis. Kumashiro concludes the conversation with additional reflections on barriers and contradictions involved in advancing anti-oppressive educational research in educational journals. Copyright © by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.

A Test of Performance of Breast MRI Interpretation in a Multicentre Screening Study

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and performance of radiologists interpreting breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. Materials and Methods: Two test sets of eight cases comprising cancers, benign disease, technical problems and parenchymal enhancement were prepared from two manufacturers' equipment (X and Y) and reported by 15 radiologists using the recording form and scoring system of the UK MRI breast screening study [(MAgnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS)]. Variations in assessments of morphology, kinetic scores and diagnosis were measured by assessing intraobserver and interobserver variability and agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of reporting performances was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Intraobserver variation was seen in 13 (27.7%) of 47 of the radiologists' conclusions (four technical and seven pathological differences). Substantial interobserver variation was observed in the scores recorded for morphology, pattern of enhancement, quantification of enhancement and washout pattern. The overall sensitivity of breast MRI was high [88.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77.4-94.7%], combined with a specificity of 69.2% (95% CI 60.5-76.7%). The sensitivities were similar for the two test sets (P=.3), but the specificity was significantly higher for the Manufacturer X dataset (P