Dear Sir,
The UK Government Science and Technology committee has recently concluded a parliamentary debate on peer review in scientific publications.1 The current model of peer review has been accused of being slow, expensive, ineffective, and biased.2 Innovative models of publishing have been discussed, including open post-publication peer review. It has been demonstrated that open reviews are of higher quality, more courteous and take longer to complete than anonymous reviews.3 In fact, reviewers who revealed their names were more likely to recommend publication.3 Open post-publication peer review may actually improve the quality of publications and will do away with certain drawbacks of the current models of publication.4,5 There is, however, a reluctance by the scientific community to engage in this exercise.6 In this generation of rapid advancement of information technology, are we ready to embrace an evolution in publishing and peer review models?
Ajay Malviya, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth) Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
1 Science and Technology Committee 8th Report. Peer review in scientific publications. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/85602.htm. 2011/08/23 (date last accessed 5 December 2012). Google Scholar
2 Smith R. What is post publication peer review? BMJ Group. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/ (date last accessed 5 December 2012). Google Scholar
3 Walsh E , RooneyM, ApplebyL, and WilkinsonG. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry2000;176:47–51.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
4 Gibson TA . Post-publication review could aid skills and quality. Nature2007;448(7152): 408.:.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
5 Smith R . Post-publication review. Embrace the “market of ideas”. BMJ2010;341: c5148.:. Google Scholar
6 Schriger DL and Altman DG . Inadequate post-publication review of medical research. BMJ2010;341: c3803.:.CrossrefPubMed Google Scholar
