[LIS-Forum] Peer-Review is Dead – Long Live "Peer-Review 2.0"

Sukhdev Singh esukhdev at gmail.com
Mon Jun 12 14:58:33 IST 2006


Peer-Review is Dead – Long Live "Peer-Review 2.0"
Before an article gets published in a traditional scholarly journal –
Print or Online – it undergoes a quality-check process called Peer
Review. But this process does have some drawbacks. First one is that
it is time-consuming process. Which adds to the delay in publication.
Such a delay could be very significant if research results could be
used to immediate problems – for example  'avian flu'. Second drawback
is that it could add to the "biases" as quality control is in the
hands of two or three peer-reviewers.

Interactive nature of Internet has offered scholarly journals to
experiment with peer-review process. "Nature" for example is
undertaking an open peer review trial. In this trial, authors whose
submissions to Nature are sent for peer review will also be offered
the opportunity to participate in an open peer review process. In this
three month trial, authors can choose to have their submissions posted
on a preprint server for open comments, in parallel with the
conventional peer review process.
< http://openaccessjournals.blogspot.com/2006/06/trial-and-debate-over-peer-review.html
>

Now an Open Access Publisher - Public Library of Science <
http://www.plos.org/> is coming up with PLoS ONE <
http://www.plosone.org/>. It claims to offer a new approach to the way
that scientific research is communicated. It will "identify" papers
that are technically sound and publish them "rapidly". These will be
presented for open and continuous review to whole scientific
community. They believe that published papers are not some form of
absolute truth but part of an ongoing discussion. Interestingly their
site PloS ONE is subtitled "Open Access 2.0".

BMJ <http://bmj.bmjjournals.com> also has been trying to answer to the
problems of traditional peer review [see its editorial - Peer review:
reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review
<http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7111/759>]. It also
has a "RAPID RESPONSES" <
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=1 >
feature by which readers may write online comments to published
articles.

There are some extreme views as well to do away the "Peer-Review" as
such. In a pitch for Wikipedia Concept, Peter Frishauf [Are
Traditional Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles Obsolete? A Pitch for the
Wikipedia Concept <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/520070>,
Requires Free Registeration] argues, " we depend on peer-reviewed
articles in print and online. But is this method obsolete? And is
there a better way? Traditional medical articles are often outdated
before publication. Consider HIV, SARs, avian flu -- even hormone
replacement therapy. They're not comprehensive: For any topic, we have
to read dozens of articles to be informed. And bias is always present,
regardless of peer review… Based on a radical new model of publishing,
on Wikipedia nearly anyone with a Web connection can start or edit an
article. Contributors must agree to write in neutral point of view
(NPV). Opinion is fair game for deletion by the first Wikipedian who
reads it -- typically within 30 seconds of publication."

What ever it takes – the era of "Post-Publication Peer Review" has
begun. I wish to call it "Peer-Review 2.0".

Peer-Review is Dead – Long Live "Peer-Review 2.0"

--Sukhdev Singh, NIC.
http://openmed.nic.in




More information about the LIS-Forum mailing list