Skip to main content

Multilayer and Multimetric Quality Control: The Supercourse


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∼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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. (2001) Besterfield. Quality control, 6th ed. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River

  3. Barkman W (1989) In-process quality control for manufacturing. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Al Kawi MZ (1997) History of medical records and peer review. Ann Saudi Med 17(3):277–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spier R (2002) The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol 20(8):357–358

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287(21):2784–2786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jefferson T, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Measuring the quality of editorial peer review. JAMA 287(21):2786–2790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mulligan A (2005) Is peer review in crisis? Oral Oncol 41(2):135–141

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

  11. Alberts B, Fineberg HV (2004) Academies' presidents comment on OMB peer review guidelines. Available at Accessed June 1, 2009

  12. 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 Accessed June 1, 2009

  13. NIH (2007) NIH Peer Review Report. In: NIH

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chotani RA, LaPorte RE, Linkov F, Dodani S, Ahmed D, Ibrahim KM (2003) Just-in-time lectures: SARS. Lancet 361(9373):1996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Husseini A, Saad R, LaPorte RE (2002) Health Supercourse to end Arab isolation. Nature 417(6891):788

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Laporte RE, Sekikawa A, Sa E, Linkov F, Lovalekar M (2002) Whisking research into the classroom. BMJ 324(7329):99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Laporte RE, Omenn GS, Serageldin I, Cerf VG, Linkov F (2006) A scientific Supercourse. Science 312(5773):526

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Linkov F, LaPorte R, Lovalekar M, Dodani S (2005) Web quality control for lectures: Supercourse and Croat Med J 46(6):875–878

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sekikawa A, Sa ER, Acosta B, Aaron DJ, LaPorte RE (2000) Internet mirror sites. Lancet 355(9219):2000

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Linkov F, Shubnikov E, Husseini AS, Lovalekar M, LaPorte R (2003) Globalisation of prevention education: a golden lecture. Lancet 362(9395):1586–1587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Faina Linkov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Multimetric quality control
  • Supercourse
  • Cancer education
  • PowerPoint lecture
  • Multilayer QC methodology