Rules for participants in open peer review
The etiquette of online reviewing
Appropriate comment at each stage
How to add comments to the discussion list
How to keep up to date with the discussion

Rules for participants in open peer review

1. The purposes of peer review are to advise the editor on the suitability of the article for publication and to advise the authors on ways that they may be able to improve their article. All contributions to the review process should serve these purposes.
2. The editor reserves the right to make a publication decision based on his/her own assessment of the best interests of the journal and its readers.
3. The article under review is a confidential document not yet accepted for publication. It should not be shown to or discussed with colleagues, cited as a reference or used in your own work.
4. The editor will chair the review discussion. Contributors should follow any instructions from the editor given during the discussion.
5. Contributions to the review discussion should be as brief as possible. Contributors should not reiterate points that others have already made, although it is acceptable to send a note of agreement.
6. References to the article under review should quote the relevant paragraph number.
7. Assertions of fact should be backed with appropriate references.
8. All contributors should conduct themselves with professional courtesy. Remarks that may be construed as insulting or defamatory will be removed from the record.
9. Contributors who breach the required standards of the review process will be barred from further participation by the editor.

The etiquette of online reviewing

The purpose of this online discussion is to review the article. This is a service for the editors of the journal (who need advice about what to publish), for the authors of the article (who may benefit from comments designed to improve their paper), for the readers of the Journal (who rely upon the Journal quality control procedures), and ultimately for the advancement of scientific medicine.

At least two reviewers have been asked to review the article at length, and to fill in the review checklists. The members of the consultant panel have been asked to observe the reviewing process and to make specific comments if they wish. For this reason, consultant panellists will generally have less to say than reviewers.

Remember that the purpose is to review the paper, not to discuss the subject in general, so stick to the point. Avoid lengthy contributions that reiterate arguments already made, but by all means send a short note to signal your agreement with a point made by someone else. Feel free to indicate whether you think the paper should be published, but remember that the editor will make this decision.

It may be appropriate to comment on a point made by another reviewer, but this should be done (a) politely, (b) briefly and (c) only if it has a bearing on the development of the article.

Remember that your comments can immediately be read by others and that your identity is known at least by the editor. Please be aware that a written dialogue can sometimes appear more abrupt than the spoken word: consider this when phrasing your own contributions and do not be hasty to take offence at critical contributions made by others.

Appropriate comment at each stage

Errors of fact, plagiarism, or any evidence of research misconduct are worthy of comment and correction at any stage.

First submission: Comments at this stage may be quite wide-ranging. Is the article accurate? Is it original? Is it important? Does the introduction adequately explain why the study was done? Was the study conducted with appropriate methods, and are these methods adequately described? Are the results accurately and adequately described? Does the article's discussion canvass the important issues raised by the results in an accurate and impartial manner? Are the authors' conclusions reasonable? Are appropriate references cited and is previous work properly acknowledged? If the article is to be published, what revisions would improve it?

Revised article: Comments should be more closely focused. Have the authors addressed the issues mentioned in the editor's request for a revision? In doing so, have they raised any new issues requiring consideration?

Copyedited version: Comment at this stage should be tightly focused. Has copyediting improved the readability of the article without introducing any errors?

How to add comments to the discussion list:

Click on the link to "Contribute to the discussion", or simply scroll to the end of the list to find the "Message:" box.

Although it is possible to type your comment directly into the message box, we strongly recommend that you compose your comment in a wordprocessor, save the file, and then copy and paste your comment from your wordprocessor into the message box. Otherwise, you risk the possibility that an Internet connection fault will see your valuable words vanish into the ether.

We use a "double submission" procedure for entering comments. When you click on "Submit comment", the message is transmitted to the server and then relayed back to you. You then have a chance to reconsider your message, which can be edited, deleted or approved. On the second submission, your message is added to the bottom of the discussion list, and any member of the discussion group will be able to read it.

When signing your message, you can use any name you like (or no name), but be aware that your true identity will be known to the editor.

Messages on the list can be edited only by the editor.

Generally, there will only be three kinds of editing:

1. removing errors and redundancies
2. adding links for convenience
3. removing defamatory or abusive material.

Cross references: If you use the phrases "par 1", "paragraph 21" or similar in your comments, an automatic link will be generated to make it easier for others to move from your comment to the relevant place in the text.

HTML formatting: You can use html formatting in your messages if you wish. For example, if you put <B>bold</B> tags around a word, it will appear bold. Perhaps the most practical use is that you can include working links to other references on the web.

How to keep up to date with the discussion

As a member of the discussion group, you will receive a copy of each contribution to the discussion forum by email. You will therefore only need to visit the website:

1. To download or read the article
2. If and when you want to read the whole discussion in one document, or to take advantage of the weblinks between the discussion and the article
3. To add your own comments to the discussion.

--Craig Bingham
Internet peer review study coordinator