| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
|
© 2002 European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Peer review versus public review – new possibilities of on-line publishing!Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, CH-1005 Lausanne, Switzerland
* Tel.: +41-21-314-2280; fax: +41-21-314-2278 The traditional paper based journals, like the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, have developed a sophisticated manuscript selection system in order to improve the quality of the papers accepted for publication. This so-called peer review system includes in addition to the usual verification of formal requirements and language editing, the systematic assessment of submitted manuscripts by experts in the field and statistical work-up, prior to the evaluation by the section editor and final decision by the editor-in-chief. The multiplication of these parallel and serial filters of such a peer review system certainly guarantees a minimal level of quality and is the basis of the high reputation the leading journals have developed. The Impact Factor, which is based on the number of citations per article published, is the yardstick by which the Journals, the papers published, and their authors are measured. As a result, the equation {publication in a journal with high impact factor=good science=excellent author} is readily made, but not always justified. Although, the peer review system for manuscript selection has reached a high rate of acceptance by academic standards there are also a number of limitations. These include the fact that the peer review process happens behind the scenes, that the peers are by definition experts in a specific field and therefore part of the establishment, that there is a certain lack of transparency how the final decisions are reached (even if the opinions expressed are forwarded to the authors and the reviewers on a routine base), that the manuscripts are amended during iterative revisions, and that the original message may be diluted or even entirely lost. As a matter of fact, the editor-in-chief faces at the end of the traditional peer review evaluation chain three typical scenarios.
Scenario (c) where everybody agrees that a manuscript should not be published is probably the easiest one to handle, as the negative verdict is communicated to the authors together with the opinions leading to that decision. Scenario (a) where the dominant tone is positive, the manuscript usually undergoes one or several revisions and ultimately results in a publication. Scenario (b) is the most difficult, but probably also the most interesting one. In the eyes of your editor, there is matter for discussion if the experts do not agree. A typical solution for such a situation with two opposing opinions in the traditional peer review system would be to ask for a third opinion in order to tip the scales. However, this is almost equivalent to having just one reviewer and relying the editorial decision entirely on this one: not exactly satisfactory for most of us. Public review, which is possible with the new on-line communications systems, appears to be an extremely attractive solution for this type of problem. In theory, a paper submitted for publication does not necessarily have to undergo peer review, provided some minimal formal criteria are respected, if it can be discussed publicly and everybody can express his enthusiasm or his concerns about the statements made. The most important issue here is that the pros and cons are kept together with the original manuscript in a secure place, and that everybody consulting this publication later can find all the opinions that were expressed at that time. Public review as described has the advantage, that new ideas can be brought unfiltered to the public, and that, given the modern media, the corresponding questions and criticisms can be expressed almost immediately too. One major drawback of such very direct publishing might be, that the quick thought or comment made, is out of reach and cannot be withdrawn anymore, once it is on the web. Hence, some maturity of all contributors, the authors and the discussants is necessary in order to avoid such an ‘all in public’ publication venture from going too wild. ‘Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery’ (ICVTS), the new publication platform of the European Association of Cardio-thoracic Surgery has all the necessary features for public review. As a matter of fact ICVTS has been designed as a virtual conference including a moderated on-line discussion. For the time being we opted for fast track peer review, taking advantage of our fully electronic review system. This allows for web pre-publication at www.icvts.org and invitation for comments to be made through a corresponding mailbox. Reasonably polite comments are posted on the web close to the original paper they belong to and the corresponding author is invited to reply to the issues raised. As the papers and comments are published regularly in traditional paper format, the criteria set above for public review, i.e. public discussion stored together with the original manuscript in a secure place, are fulfilled. Hence, ICVTS is by now THE place for submission of controversial papers and sharp comments. See you, not at Philippi (Macedonia), where Octavian, the later roman emperor Augustus, won the battle against Brutus, but at www.icvts.org! PII: S1569929302000877 This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
