BMJ, BMA House, London, UK.
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c5729. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729.
To see whether telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews of original research papers might be posted on the BMJ's website would affect the quality of their reviews.
Randomised controlled trial.
A large international general medical journal based in the United Kingdom.
541 authors, 471 peer reviewers, and 12 editors.
Consecutive eligible papers were randomised either to have the reviewer's signed report made available on the BMJ's website alongside the published paper (intervention group) or to have the report made available only to the author-the BMJ's normal procedure (control group). The intervention was the act of revealing to reviewers-after they had agreed to review but before they undertook their review-that their signed report might appear on the website.
The main outcome measure was the quality of the reviews, as independently rated on a scale of 1 to 5 using a validated instrument by two editors and the corresponding author. Authors and editors were blind to the intervention group. Authors rated review quality before the fate of their paper had been decided. Additional outcomes were the time taken to complete the review and the reviewer's recommendation regarding publication.
558 manuscripts were randomised, and 471 manuscripts remained after exclusions. Of the 1039 reviewers approached to take part in the study, 568 (55%) declined. Two editors' evaluations of the quality of the peer review were obtained for all 471 manuscripts, with the corresponding author's evaluation obtained for 453. There was no significant difference in review quality between the intervention and control groups (mean difference for editors 0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.17; for authors 0.06, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.20). Any possible difference in favour of the control group was well below the level regarded as editorially significant. Reviewers in the intervention group took significantly longer to review (mean difference 25 minutes, 95% CI 3.0 to 47.0 minutes).
Telling peer reviewers that their signed reviews might be available in the public domain on the BMJ's website had no important effect on review quality. Although the possibility of posting reviews online was associated with a high refusal rate among potential peer reviewers and an increase in the amount of time taken to write a review, we believe that the ethical arguments in favour of open peer review more than outweigh these disadvantages.
观察告知同行评议员其签署的原始研究论文评议报告可能会发布在《英国医学杂志》（BMJ）网站上，是否会影响评议质量。
随机对照试验。
英国一家大型国际普通医学期刊。
541 位作者、471 位同行评议员和 12 位编辑。
连续入选的论文被随机分为干预组（评议员签署的报告可与已发表论文一起发布在 BMJ 网站上）和对照组（报告仅提供给作者——BMJ 的常规程序）。干预措施是在同行评议员同意评议但尚未进行评议时告知他们，他们签署的报告可能会出现在网站上。
主要结局测量指标是由两位编辑和相应的作者使用经过验证的工具对评论质量进行的独立评分，评分范围为 1 到 5 分。作者和编辑对干预组不知情。作者在其论文的命运尚未决定之前对评论质量进行评分。其他结局指标是完成评论所需的时间和评议员关于发表的建议。
对 558 篇手稿进行了随机分组，排除后有 471 篇手稿。在 1039 位受邀参加研究的评议员中，有 568 位（55%）拒绝参与。对于所有 471 篇手稿，两位编辑都对同行评议质量进行了评估，并获得了 453 篇手稿相应作者的评估。干预组和对照组之间的评议质量没有显著差异（编辑的平均差异为 0.04，95%CI-0.09 至 0.17；作者的平均差异为 0.06，95%CI-0.09 至 0.20）。任何可能有利于对照组的差异都远低于编辑认为重要的水平。干预组的评议员完成评议所需的时间明显更长（平均差异为 25 分钟，95%CI3.0 至 47.0 分钟）。
告知同行评议员其签署的评议报告可能会在 BMJ 网站的公共领域发布，对评议质量没有重要影响。虽然将评议在线发布的可能性与潜在同行评议员的高拒绝率以及撰写评议所需时间的增加有关，但我们认为支持公开同行评议的伦理论点远远超过了这些缺点。
