Peer review on the Internet: launching eMJA peer review study 2

http://www.mja.com.au/public/information/iprs2int.html

MJA 1998; 169: 240-241  

Peer review is a vital part of the quality control process in medical scientific publishing, but it also has flaws.1-3 It is narrow, potentially biased, prone to error and secretive (and, because it is secretive, it is difficult to tell how serious the other flaws may be). Can the Internet be used to improve peer review? In 1996 we launched the Journal's website with an experiment in using the Internet to open up peer review. Over the next 15 months, 56 articles, together with the reviewers' reports, were published on the website after traditional peer review but before they were edited for print, and readers were invited to make further comments. In seven instances, this led to further revision of the articles before they were published in print.4 The first eMJA peer review study was limited in many ways: it included only articles that had been accepted for publication after traditional peer review, and then only when the authors and reviewers had volunteered to participate, which may have introduced a selection bias, and there were relatively few Internet readers who took the opportunity to comment on articles. Nonetheless, the study suggested that most authors and reviewers are willing to explore more open methods of peer review and that the Internet can be used to enhance peer review while accelerating the publication process. After due consideration, we are launching another study to test a more open peer review process that is entirely based on the Internet. This study will enlist 50-60 articles over the next six to 12 months. A brief outline of the experimental peer review method and its hypothetical benefits is shown in the panels. The complete protocol for the study is published on the eMJA website,5 and we hope that Journal readers will read it, offer their comments and volunteer their participation. Craig Bingham eMJA peer review study coordinator Martin B Van Der Weyden Editor, MJA Hypothetical benefits of the new peer review method The study will test whether these hypotheses are valid: This model will be preferred by authors and reviewers because it gives them greater feedback and a more direct interaction. The panel of consultants will add useful information and provide a check on the performance of the system. The open review period for accepted articles will generate a small but useful amount of comment from readers. Editorial time and resources involved in the new process will be similar to that required for traditional peer review. 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 traditional review. We need volunteers If you are interested in participating in the eMJA Internet peer review study as a consultant panel member, please email Craig Bingham at medjaust at ampco dotcom dotau stating your areas of interest and expertise. You need not be a medical practitioner: other health professionals, biomedical scientists, lawyers, economists, psychologists and social scientists with an interest in health and medicine are encouraged to lend their expertise as well. Of course access to the Internet is required for participation in the study. However, readers without Internet access who wish to see the eMJA Internet peer review study protocol (28 pages) should contact Craig Bingham (tel. +61 2 9562 6666, fax. +61 2 9562 6699)to arrange to have a copy faxed or posted to them. The eMJA Internet peer review study protocol is available on the web at http://www.mja.com.au/public/information/iprs2int.html Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. London: BMJ, 1991: 23-55. Horrobin D. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990; 263: 1438-1441. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports. JAMA 1998; 280: 237-240. Bingham CM, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden MB. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study. Lancet 1998; 352: 441-445. Draft protocol for Internet Peer Review Study II. http://www.mja.com.au/public/information/iprs2int.html