Abstract
Cancer-related presentations are rapidly communicated through thousands of Websites, chat rooms, newsgroups, list servers, newsletters, YouTube, and e-mails, with no specific attention to the validity of the reported findings. Quality control (QC) of cancer education lectures on the Web is an important concern, just like the quality assessment of all information found on the Web. This paper discusses the Supercourse, a global library of 3,600 online lectures available at www.pitt.edu/∼super1 and several alternative quality control approaches that are being developed as part of this global effort. Peer review may not be optimal for the review of online lectures because it is labor-intensive and has low throughput. To our knowledge, we are among the first to begin a multilayer and multimetric evaluation approach toward QC (MQC) of PowerPoint lectures on the Web. We hope that future scientific research on peer review as well as on emerging multilayer QC methodologies will help us to determine best measures of QC, especially in the field of rapidly developing cancer education.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Satcher MJ, Litton AG, Waterbor JW, Brooks CM (2009) The Journal of Cancer Education: a retrospective review of quality indicators. J Cancer Educ 24(1):16–21
(2001) Besterfield. Quality control, 6th ed. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River
Barkman W (1989) In-process quality control for manufacturing. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York
Al Kawi MZ (1997) History of medical records and peer review. Ann Saudi Med 17(3):277–8
Spier R (2002) The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 20(8):357–358
Richards D (2007) Little evidence to support the use of editorial peer review to ensure quality of published research. Evid Based Dent 8(3):88–89
Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287(21):2784–2786
Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 287(21):2786–2790
Mulligan A (2005) Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncol 41(2):135–141
CGER (1997) Peer review in the Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology: Interim Report. In: Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources: The National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Alberts B, Fineberg HV (2004) Academies' presidents comment on OMB peer review guidelines. Available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04152004 Accessed June 1, 2009
Lackey R. If ecological risk assessment is the answer, what is the question? The role of peer review in regulatory decision-making, Chapter 6. In Riskworld 1997 Available at http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1997/risk-rpt/volume2/html/v2epa6.htm. Accessed June 1, 2009
NIH (2007) NIH Peer Review Report. In: NIH
Ardalan A, Linkov F, Naieni KH, LaPorte RE, Noji E (2004) Bridging schools of public health between Iran and the USA. Lancet 363(9423):1830
Chotani RA, LaPorte RE, Linkov F, Dodani S, Ahmed D, Ibrahim KM (2003) Just-in-time lectures: SARS. Lancet 361(9373):1996
Husseini A, Saad R, LaPorte RE (2002) Health Supercourse to end Arab isolation. Nature 417(6891):788
Karimova S, Laporte R, Shubnikov E, Linkov F (2007) Maternal and child health Supercourse for the former Soviet Union countries. Matern Child Health J 11(6):628–633
Sa E, Sekikawa A, Linkov F, Lovalekar M, LaPorte RE (2003) Open source model for global collaboration in higher education. Int J Med Inform 71(2–3):165
Sekikawa A, Aaron DJ, Acosta B, Sa E, LaPorte RE (2001) Does the perception of downloading speed influence the evaluation of Web-based lectures? Public Health 115(2):152–156
Laporte RE, Sekikawa A, Sa E, Linkov F, Lovalekar M (2002) Whisking research into the classroom. BMJ 324(7329):99
Laporte RE, Omenn GS, Serageldin I, Cerf VG, Linkov F (2006) A scientific Supercourse. Science 312(5773):526
Linkov F, LaPorte R, Lovalekar M, Dodani S (2005) Web quality control for lectures: Supercourse and Amazon.com. Croat Med J 46(6):875–878
Linkov F, Lovalekar M, Laporte R (2006) Scientific journals are "faith based": is there science behind peer review? J R Soc Med 99(12):596–598
Linkov F, Lovalekar M, LaPorte R (2007) Quality control of epidemiological lectures online: scientific evaluation of peer review. Croat Med J 48(2):249–255
Sekikawa A, Sa ER, Acosta B, Aaron DJ, LaPorte RE (2000) Internet mirror sites. Lancet 355(9219):2000
Linkov F, Shubnikov E, Husseini AS, Lovalekar M, LaPorte R (2003) Globalisation of prevention education: a golden lecture. Lancet 362(9395):1586–1587
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Linkov, F., Omenn, G.S., Serageldin, I. et al. Multilayer and Multimetric Quality Control: The Supercourse. J Canc Educ 25, 478–483 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0091-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0091-0