Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial
BMJ 2010; 341 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729 (Published 16 November 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c5729
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I think that the time has come to end anonymous reviewing. The upside
of this would be a reduction in bias from the competitors, riders of
hobby horses and those troubled by personnal vendettas. The down side will
be that the reviewing process will be more drawn out...!
Competing interests: No competing interests
Any scientist who is not comfortable when he/she is openly stated to
have said or done what he/she actually said or did is definitely not
worthy of the name. What is involved in peer review of other peoples'
works is objectivity and fairness. Whereas it is not absolutely possible
for humans to be 100% objective in whatever they do, including reviewing
of others' works, every effort must be made to be objective and fair.
I strongly believe that informing peer reviewers that their signed
reviews might be posted on the web will improve both the quality and
objectivity of their reviews because the reviewers will then understand
that they will in turn be reviewed by the entire academic community
Chukwuemeka Nwaelugo
Chukwuemeka.nwaelugo@northumbria.ac.uk
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have written every review (for the MJA) as if it were signed. I try
to be helpfully constructive.
There is no point in aggression, being a smart-alec or belittling the
authors. But provision is needed for a short, candid, confidential comment
to the editor (as is done by the MJA).
What strikes me as more of a problem, however, is divulging, to the
reviewer, the names of the authors.
If this were done, then the journal's first questions to the reviewer
could be:
"Do you personally know the author(s)?", followed by: "If so, would
you prefer not to review this paper?"
This would/could avoid embarrassment on both sides: the reviewer
might have trained an author or been trained by an author or might be a
rival in the same field. It would/could also avoid personality conflicts.
Competing interests: Regular reviewer for Medical Journal of Australia
As someone who had written papers and articles and worked as part of
an editorial team I would like to make the following points:-
The current review process appears efficient,and fair. In many fields
the author and reviewer will already be known to one another. Naming the
reviewer, in the peer review process, might harm future relationships.
If a reviewer is too strident in their assessment this would be
rapidly circulated within that discipline. The potential 'bad press' might
deter responsible revewers form paticipating in the future.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I understand there are advantages and disadvantages to both methods
of review.
Why not test the two basic methods by having two panels review the same
papers, one group of reviewers revealed and one confidential. Then see how
they compare.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Earnest attempt and appreciative work has been undertaken by authors
to maintain and improve the quality of research based materials for
scientific forum worldwide.
Mentioning the reviewers with the study would be a good tool for
filling the gap of accountability and transparency in the scientific
forum, when transparency of decision is becoming the norm as mentioned in
the introduction. There is lack of information in the introduction about
the areas of improvements, which authors are trying to bring about by
mention of reviewer on the web. When the quality of the review of all
manuscripts was assessed on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 by using a validated
review quality instrument (RQI), domain of assessment areas should have
been discussed in the study. Domain of assessment could have pin-pointed
the effect of intervention closely. There is no mention of justification
of intervention in the study. Reports and opinion from the BioMed Central
and three of the fifty six journals mentioning the reviewers and open peer
review respectively could have been taken before designing the study.
The results of study "extending open peer review to include sharing
reviewers' signed reports with the world at large is feasible at a large
medical journal and does not adversely affect the quality of these
reports, nor does it improve it by any notable amount" can be cross
verified and validated with the result of qualitative study done on same
theme. However, if other study validates the result of this study,
decision of individual reviewer can be taken for their choice of being
posted on the web.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Research is observation for evidence that convinces experts practising medicine and addition to pre existing information; involves qiyas or intuition, exploration or experimentation, observation, discussion and conclusion by the observer communicator and approval by the Expert. That way knowledge about medicine evolves. So the charitable persons and groups worked over ages for preservation of knowledge with ongoing developments and communication for larger benefits of mankind. Man, but expelled from heaven was not alone a human pair, instead the chief Angle turned Devil was too expelled, with curse to live on earth for time limited and in enmity with each other. We transgress too in temptations of personal benefit. So system evolves with righteous intentions flouted too by greed of wealth and name fame. Yet things are appreciable.
Problems that majority researchers face are in anxiety, short of time to work, shortage of time to read information on research and developments. Temptations for Job, name, fame, awards, opportunities to confer and contact, particularly for beginners and industrial contributions by manufacturing for satisfaction of sale besides charity and research aid are too significant. So whatever researcher performs, reads and presents as contribution to knowledge cannot be trusted hundred percent truth: WHO evaluations reports speak of fake researches in very high percentage, meaning thereby waste in terms of money and resources for generation of confusion and ill concepts injurious to the treating and being treated.
Therefore, research communications to journals need to be critically examined by the EXPERT for evidence and precision in terms of meaningful addition to what was pre-existing and approved in practice. Expert when he is assigned to review, must review keeping all relevant aspects in view, must indicate what is correct and convincing. His decision right or wrong should be subject to scrutiny of the reader experts of the subject; which can be possible only if expert's name is made public. The natural outcome is to be the experts caring their prestige, so the standard of research and of the publishing journals going up. How it is fair a researcher and journal posting expert and teaching questionable? On the other hand, if researcher missed important aspect of his observation the expert should be duty bound to point out and that contribution of reviewer expert must be cited in text of discussion along with expert's affiliation, which cannot be possible unless expert reviewers name is made public.So it is bound to improve quality of research and publication which is particularly of high valued utility in Medicine. Conclusion of the study, hence, is commendable.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Indeed, there are good points in the idea that a reviewer's identity
should be made public: it should increase responsibility, ultimately the
review would become more thorough; of course it will take longer, but
only until one gets used to the new approach!
This system may give place to fierce debates between the author(s) and
the reviewer(s), but again some new ideas will be born this way. For sure,
feelings will be incited.
My answer is yes, I have nothing against being made public when I review
an article, but I am biased, because I love to change old things and I
don't know if it is for the better!
Regards from among microorganisms in Bucharest, Romania,
dr. Raluca
Papagheorghe
Competing interests: No competing interests
I think it will help to avoid the prejudice of the reviewer. It would good to try.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Time is money ..... Right? A reviewer and editor’s point
Yes, time is money ...isn’t it? Especially non-paid role of reviewer hat. As a relatively new reviewer and editor of a journal, I feel this nice paper give me an opportunity to have my say.
As stated in the study and a well known fact, there are several way to appraise a manuscript, they are mainly: 1) Single blind 2) Double blind ) Open reviews.
All harbour it’s own risks and benefits and well outlined in the paper.
I would prefer to go along for double blind as it eliminates both sided bias and less time consuming. Having said that, I find open review initiative_ like here at BMJ_ looks didactic and can be applied through yellow card initiative.
However, time is precious and reviewer’s time should be used fairly and appropriately.
Competing interests: No competing interests