Online Open Peer Review a brand new tool

Online Open Peer Review: a brand new tool for the evaluation of articles Laura Cavazza Soprintendenza beni librari – Regione Emilia-Romagna Santander, 9 th European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries , September 20 -25, 2004 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 1

Introduction 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 2

24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 3

Peer review: …lights & shadows 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 4

Definition • PEER REVIEW is the revision of articles made by scholars who are peers to the author 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 5

Peer review 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 6

Definition (2) • ’Peer review is an organized procedure carried out by a select committee of professionals in evaluating the performance of other professionals in meeting the standards of their specialty. ' National Library of Medicine (2003) Medical Subject Headings, 2003 Mesh descriptor data, <http: //www. nlm. nih. gov/>. 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 7

Action/function - quality filtre (QC/C) - guarantee of professional standards - ‘unrestricted criticism’ (Rennie, 1999) 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 8

Traditional peer review Editor Referees Author/s 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 9

Pros & cons DISADVANTAGES: • Peer review is subjective and unreliable • partial (conflict of interest) • biased: – against innovation – publication (positive results) – statistic – personal-institutional (author) – gender, language, etc. • slow and expensive • the sum of peers’ mistakes and abuses 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 10

Questions Should peer review survive and why? If so, what shape should it take? 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 11

Pros & cons (2) ADVANTAGES: • Poor quality research watcher – (plagiarism, fraud, etc. ) • Quality of article improvement • Readability of article improvement • Cost effective/value for money • ‘Unrestricted criticism’ environment 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 12

Peer review is essential to the scientific communication process 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 13

The background 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 14

The background has recently changed • Technological innovation – Internet – Computer Supported Cooperative Work 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 15

The background has recently changed (2) • Publishing market – rising costs of journals – new models of publishing • Open Access Journals and Open Archives 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 16

The background has recently changed (3) Open Access Journals • Open/free access on the Internet • copyright lodged with authors • peer reviewed articles • authors pay for the publication expenses 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 17

… and peer review has changed as well. . . blind/double blind. . . results blind. . . bottom-up approach …. . . top-down approach. . . internal. . . external. . . online. . . open … Online open peer review 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 18

Open peer review 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 19

Online open peer review • Strong interactivity (CSCW) • Dialogue among author, referees, editor and readers on the net • Articles linked to peers’ revisions, editor’s/authors’ comments, different versions, external materials • Post-publication included in peer review evaluation • Peer review as a kernel of the journal 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 20

Online open peer review • Medical J Australia (MJA) • J Interactive Media Education (JIME) • Electronic Submission &Peer Review(ESPERE) • Bio. Med Central (BMC) • British Medical J (BMJ) • Psycholoquy • Health Library Online(HLO) 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 21

key point Online open peer review Open access journals 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 22

A competitive peer review process in a open access journal should be: • Fair/transparent, impartial, reliable • Able to increase the quality of articles • Quick and well-timed • Financially sustainable (at least for the author ) 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 23

Pros & cons Online open peer review and Open access: PROS CONS • Fair, impartial, reliable and ethical • Unfinished validation and identification of the model in literature • Quick and wider dissemination • Costs? ? • Quality improvement of articles and of the process • Possible increase of workload for the journal staff? ? • Improved article quality through readers’ feedback 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 24

New scenarios in the future open access world (1) • Articles and documents will change: the official/certified version loses its importance • medicine: the certified version of the articles must be stated 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 25

New scenarios in the future open access world (2) • Post-publication evaluation already begins during the peer review process • IF loses its importance as unique evaluation criterion while/against other systems such as weblogs will be increasing 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 26

New scenarios in the future open access world (3) • New role of the libraries supporting and financing Open access journals: – paying for authors’/institution publication expenses – disinvesting in printed and online resources to the advantages of open access 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 27

Conclusions The future of scientific communication runs through the present of peer review 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 28

References Cavazza, L. (2003) Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde: ruolo, futuro e lati oscuri della peer review nell’editoria biomedica del nuovo millennio (Postgraduate dissertation). Comba, V. (2000) Comunicare nell’era digitale, Milano, Bibliografica, p. 120 -126. Kassirer, J. P. , Campion, E. V. (1994) Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable, JAMA, 1994, p. 96 -97. National Library of Medicine (2003) Medical Subject Headings, 2003 Mesh descriptor data, <http: //www. nlm. nih. gov/>. Nichols, D. (2001) Application of Computer Supported Cooperative Work for libraries, <http: //medicina. unica. it/alghero 2001/proceedings/eahil-notes. pdf> Rennie, D. (2003) Innovation and peer review, <http: //www. bmjpg. com/chapter/0727916858_sample. pdf> Rennie, D. (1999) Editorial peer review: its development and rationale, In Peer review in health sciences (1999) edited by F. Godlee, T. Jefferson, London, BMJ Books, p. 313. Wood, D. (1998) Online peer review? , “Learned Publishing”, 11, 3, p. 193 -198. 24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 29

24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 30