|
Protocol for Internet Peer Review Study II
| Note added 8 August 2002: Internet Peer Review Study II never advanced beyond the pilot stage. The documentation remains available here so that interested parties can view the study protocol and some examples of the interactive peer review technique trialled in the study. I hope to report further at some stage — Craig Bingham. |
The MJA launched this study on 8 October 1998. The protocol was published online for comment and revision before the study began, and remains available for the information of participants and others.
Last revision to protocol: 8 October 1998.
To express an interest in participating in the study as a reviewer or consultant, or to make a comment, write to:
Internet peer review study coordinator, Craig Bingham, by email to cbingham at ampco dotcom dotau
Postal address: The Medical Journal of Australia, Private Bag 901, North Sydney, NSW 2059, Australia
Fax: +61 2 9562 6666
For information about our previous Internet peer review study, click here
To print the protocol in full,you must print three files: iprs2int.html [the executive summary], iprs2bod.html [main protocol document] and iprs2doc.html [various associated documents].
This page is iprs2int.html.
Executive summary
Objective |
To assess the acceptability, workability and effectiveness of using
the Internet for a new model of peer review.
|
Outline of new model |
Articles submitted for publication are circulated to reviewers via
the world wide web (using password-protected access) and the review
process is conducted as an online discussion between the journal
editors, reviewers, authors and a small panel of consultants who
represent a wider range of expertise and journal readership.
When an article is accepted for publication, both the article and the
record of its review process are rapidly published on the world wide
web for open review by the Journal's readers. After four weeks of open
review, the article is finalised and published in print.
|
Hypotheses |
This model of peer review will be preferred by authors and reviewers.
The panel of consultants will add useful information to the review
process.
The open review period for accepted articles will generate a small but
useful amount of comment from readers.
The editorial time and resources involved in this review process will
be similar to that required for the standard review process.
Reviewers will give better quality reviews.
Articles published after this review process will have fewer errors
and be of higher quality than those published after standard review.
|
Study size and duration |
Baseline control group (50 articles undergoing standard review)
collected over 4-12 weeks.
Study group (50 articles) and non-participant control group (up to 50
articles) collected over next 1-26 weeks.
All articles followed up (for comment in letters to the editor) until
two months after publication in print.
|
Main outcome measures |
Participation rates of authors, reviewers and others.
Performance scores for reviewers (compared with performance scores
of reviewers in standard review process).
Evaluation questionnaires completed by authors, reviewers and
editors.
Time in review (standard/new model).
?Readers' assessments of articles after new model review/standard
review (if possible).
On to protocol in full...
Back to top of the protocol document ...
|
<URL:http://www.mja.com.au/public/information/iprs2int.html>
© 1998 Medical Journal of Australia.
|