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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24/09/2004L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander Pros & cons 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??

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

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

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

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

24/09/2004L. Cavazza - Online open peer review/EAHIL Santander References Cavazza, L.(2003) Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde: ruolo, futuro e lati oscuri della peer review nelleditoria biomedica del nuovo millennio (Postgraduate dissertation). Comba, V. (2000) Comunicare nellera digitale, Milano, Bibliografica, p Kassirer, J. P., Campion, E. V. (1994) Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable, JAMA, 1994, p National Library of Medicine (2003) Medical Subject Headings, 2003 Mesh descriptor data,. Nichols, D. (2001) Application of Computer Supported Cooperative Work for libraries, Rennie, D. (2003) Innovation and peer review, 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 Wood, D. (1998) Online peer review?, Learned Publishing, 11, 3, p

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