Bingham C M, Higgins G, Coleman R, Van Der Weyden M B
The Medical Journal of Australia, North Sydney, NSW.
Lancet. 1998 Aug 8;352(9126):441-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11510-0.
Peer review of medical papers is a confidential consultancy between the reviewer and the journal editor, and has been criticised for its potential bias and inadequacy. We explored the potential of the internet for open peer review to see whether this approach improved the quality and outcome of peer review.
Research and review articles that had been accepted for publication in The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) were published together with the reviewers' reports on the worldwide web, with the consent of authors and referees. Selected readers' e-mailed comments were electronically published as additional commentary; authors could reply or revise their paper in response to readers' comments. Articles were edited and published in print after this open review.
60 (81%) of 74 authors agreed to take part in the study, together with 150 (92%) of 162 reviewers. There was no significant difference in the performance of commissioned reviewers before and during the study. Four articles were not included because of insufficient time before print publication. Of the remaining 56 papers, 28 received 52 comments from 42 readers (2% of readers submitted comments). Most readers' comments were short and specific, and seven articles were changed by the authors in response.
Open peer review is acceptable to most authors and reviewers. Postpublication review by readers on the internet is no substitute for commissioned prepublication review, but can provide editors with valuable input from individuals who would not otherwise be consulted. Readers also gain insight into the processes of peer review and publication.
医学论文的同行评审是评审人员与期刊编辑之间的机密咨询活动，因其潜在的偏见和不足之处而受到批评。我们探讨了互联网用于公开同行评审的潜力，以了解这种方法是否能提高同行评审的质量和结果。
在作者和评审人员同意的情况下，已被《澳大利亚医学杂志》（MJA）接受发表的研究和综述文章与其评审报告一同在万维网上发表。选定读者通过电子邮件发送的评论作为附加评论以电子方式发表；作者可以回复或根据读者评论修改论文。经过这种公开评审后，文章进行编辑并印刷发表。
74位作者中有60位（81%）同意参与研究，162位评审人员中有150位（92%）同意。委托评审人员在研究前和研究期间的表现没有显著差异。由于印刷出版前时间不足，有4篇文章未被纳入。在其余56篇论文中，28篇收到了42位读者的52条评论（2%的读者提交了评论）。大多数读者评论简短且具体，7篇文章的作者据此进行了修改。
公开同行评审为大多数作者和评审人员所接受。读者在互联网上进行的发表后评审不能替代委托进行的发表前评审，但可以为编辑提供来自那些否则不会被咨询的个人的有价值的意见。读者也能深入了解同行评审和出版过程。
