24/09/2004L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 1 Online Open Peer Review: a...
-
Upload
carlos-clark -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 24/09/2004L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004 1 Online Open Peer Review: a...
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
1
Online Open Peer Review: Online Open Peer Review: a brand new tool for the evaluation a brand new tool for the evaluation
of articlesof articles
Laura CavazzaLaura CavazzaSoprintendenza beni librari – Regione Emilia-RomagnaSoprintendenza beni librari – Regione Emilia-Romagna
Santander, 9th European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries , Santander, 9th European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries , September 20-25, 2004September 20-25, 2004
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
2
IntroductionIntroduction
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
3
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
4
Peer review: …lights & shadowsPeer review: …lights & shadows
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
5
DefinitionDefinition
• 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
6
Peer reviewPeer review
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
7
Definition Definition (2)(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
8
Action/functionAction/function
- quality filtre (QC/C)
- guarantee of professional standardsguarantee of professional standards- ‘unrestricted criticism’ (Rennie, 1999)
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
9
Traditional peer reviewTraditional peer review
Editor
Author/s Referees
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
10
Pros & consPros & cons
DISADVANTAGES: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
11
QuestionsQuestions
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
12
Pros & cons Pros & cons (2)(2)
ADVANTAGES: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
13
Peer review is essential to the Peer review is essential to the scientific communication processscientific communication process
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
14
The backgroundThe background
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
15
The background has The background has recently changedrecently changed
• Technological innovation– Internet
– Computer Supported Cooperative Work
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
16
The background has The background has recently changed recently changed (2)(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
17
The background has recently changed (3)The background has recently changed (3)
Open Access JournalsOpen 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
18
… … and peer review has and peer review has changed as wellchanged as well
...blind/double blind... ...results blind ...
...bottom-up approach … ...top-down approach...
...internal ... external
...online ...
...open … Online open peer reviewOnline open peer review
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
19
Open peer reviewOpen peer review
Editor Author/s Referees
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
20
Online open peer reviewOnline 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
21
Online open peer reviewOnline open peer review
• Medical J Australia (MJA)
• J Interactive Media Education (JIME)
• Electronic Submission &Peer Review(ESPERE)
• BioMed Central (BMC)
• British Medical J (BMJ)
• Psycholoquy
• Health Library Online(HLO)
Author/s Referee
sss
Readers
Editor
ONLINE JOURNALLinks
(external/internal)
Peer review
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
22
key pointkey point
Online open peer reviewOnline open peer review
Open access journalsOpen access journals
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
23
A competitive peer review process A competitive peer review process in a open access journal should be: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
24
Pros & consPros & consOnline open peer review and Open access:Online open peer review and Open access:
PROS• Fair, impartial, reliable and
ethical
• Quick and wider dissemination
• Quality improvement of articles and of the process
• Improved article quality through readers’ feedback
CONS• Unfinished validation and
identification of the model in literature
• Costs??
• Possible increase of workload for the journal staff??
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
25
New scenarios in the future open access New scenarios in the future open access world (1)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
26
New scenarios in the future open New scenarios in the future open access world (2)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
27
New scenarios in the future open access New scenarios in the future open access world (3)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
28
ConclusionsConclusions
The future of scientific The future of scientific communication runs through the communication runs through the
present of peer reviewpresent of peer review
24/09/2004 L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander 2004
29
ReferencesReferences
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. 3-13.
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
30