Revisão pelos pares é uma “bênção”1 sobre a ciência que tem sido revisada pelo seu mérito para publicação. “A fase de revisão por pares continuará a ser essencial para garantir que o corpo da ciência cresça através de descobertas e afirmações reais e embasadas. A revisão por pares exclui desinformação prejudicial enquanto se adapta a novos resultados… em última análise, é um serviço extraordinário provido gratuitamente pelos cientistas para a comunidade científica e a sociedade como um todo”.2 Entretanto, seu processo é inerentemente frágil, sendo dependente de um revisor selecionado por seu/ sua experiência dentro do campo, mas que não é remunerado para a realização da tarefa, deve encontrar tempo para a tarefa em meio a uma carreira/vida pessoal movimentada, e pode ter, até certo ponto, perdido perícia (com o aumento da senioridade sua/seu engajamento e atividade em pesquisa pode diminuir). Peer review is a “blessing”1 upon the science that has been reviewed for its worthiness for publication. “The peer-review stage will continue to be essential for ensuring that the body of science grows through real, supported discoveries and assertions. Peer review excludes damaging misinformation while adapting to new inputs … ultimately it is an extraordinary service provided for free by scientists to the scientific community and society as a whole.”2 Yet, the process is inherently fragile, being reliant on a reviewer selected for his/her expertise within the field but who is unpaid for undertaking the task, must carve time for the task out of a busy career/personal life, and may have, to some extent, lost expertise (with increasing seniority his/her engagement and activity in research may loosen). La revisión por pares es una “bendición”1 sobre la ciencia que ha sido revisada por su mérito para su publicación. “El escenario de revisión por pares seguirá siendo esencial para asegurar que el cuerpo de la ciencia crezca a través de descubrimientos y afirmaciones reales y respaldadas. La revisión por pares excluye la falsa información perjudicial, mientras que adaptándose a los nuevos aportes … en última instancia, es un servicio extraordinario proporcionado gratuitamente por los científicos a la comunidad científica y la sociedad en su conjunto”.2 Sin embargo, el proceso es de por sí frágil, siendo dependiente de un revisor seleccionado por su experiencia en el campo, pero que no se le paga para llevar a cabo la tarea, debe extraer el tiempo para la tarea de una carrera o vida personal ocupada, y puede haber perdido, en cierta medida, conocimientos (con el aumento de la edad su compromiso y actividad en la investigación puede aflojarse).

1. The future of Peer Review
ensuring/assuring quality
thoughts of a “freshman” editor
Janet Seggie, HMPG
(SAMA)

2. South African Medical Journal
South African Journal of Surgery
South African Journal of Child Health
South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine
South African Journal of Sports Science
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law online only
South African Journal of Psychiatry
African Journal of Health Professions Education online only
South African Journal of Radiology
South African Journal of Communication Disorders
Southern African Journal of Critical Care
Continuing Medical Education not peer reviewed.

3. The future …
- Is there a future for peer-review?
- What will be the shape of peerreview in the future?
the wisdom of the crowds
vs
wisdom of the few
Wisdom of the crowds
Nature (2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04992

4. “Game of Papers”
“Cascading” peer review systems
The consortia will enable papers, with
their accompanying referee reports, to
move more easily between publishers.

5. Who are the peer reviewers ?
An “elite” - clinicians/scientists who work in a
field relevant to the paper under consideration
academics
(on a relatively short list of
experts/often in a narrow field)
who have experience, insight, and the respect of
other researchers –
offer wise advice
and
get it right most of the time

6. The traditional process:
wisdom of the few
reward
reward
The Lancet
Author submits
Re-submits
“in house” p r/triage
certification &
registration
Acceptance (5%); rejection (75%); sent for P-R
Re-review
6 expert reviewers (!)
+ statistician
PUBLISH
Call for revision(s)
awareness
archiving

7. Pre-publication peer review
- clarifies - scientific error filtered out
- poor quality work rejected
- places new work in context of available
evidence
- requires declaration of limitations
- prevents over-interpretation
- It is right for the readers
 journal fulfills the awareness role
 published work cited & archived

8. a “flawed process at the heart
of science and journals”
•
•
•
•
Richard Smith
Slow
Expensive … of time and money
Inefficient … cycling to other jnls
Inconsistent (6 reviews for stats consistency!)
• Subjective
• Inexpert/amateurish
• Blocks innovation
• Biased … gender, language, nationality,
against `negative studies’
• Open to abuse … conflicts of interest; politics
• Fails to determine fraud

9. process is inherently fragile
reliant on a reviewer selected for his/her expertise
but who …
- is unpaid for undertaking the task
- receives no academic recognition/reward
- must carve 4-8 hours for the task out of a busy
career/ personal life
- may have lost expertise …
with increasing seniority his/her engagement &
activity in research may loosen

10. The future …

11. the shape of peer-review in the future? 1
 research/new findings in context …
reports of new research linked to an
up-to-date systematic review
- the Cochrane collaboration model (at
the Cochrane Library) … pre- and postpublication review
- commissioned editorial

12. the shape of peer-review in the future? 2
• Open peer review = transparency
where the identity of the reviewer (s) is known to the
author …
allows authors and readers to determine
whether the review process has been just
! Smaller
jnls c smaller constituencies
…
capacity ?

13. The shape of peer-review in the future 3
Replace
the wisdom of the few
with
the wisdom of the crowds
define 'peer' as broadly as possible
– to maximize the power of collective intelligence
The Internet –
digital,networked environment

14. the “online peer”
taps into something that already exists:
journal clubs

15. pre-publication peer review
“Disruption!”
pre-publication only verify whether experiments and
data analysis were conducted rigorously
If published, papers made available for
community-based open peer review …
the scientific community ascertains importance through
debate and comment.
PLOS ONE publishes
approximately 70 % of all
submissions, after review by
2.8 experts.

16. encourages open peer-review
Criteria for Publication
reviewers seek:
Originality
Importance to researchers or practitioners in the field
Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the
field
Rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for
conclusions
Conducted according to the highest ethical standards

17. “Game of Papers”
“Cascading” peer review systems
The consortia will enable papers, with
their accompanying referee reports, to
move more easily between publishers.

18. pre-publication peer review
Rubriq.com …
a few, brave journal editors have
suggested that peer review …
decides where a study gets published
rather than whether it gets published

19. Res Altwegg
Dieter Oschadleus
Les Underhill

20. Authors submit a manuscript
Peers voluntarily engage in review processes Peerage Essay
Peer-review-of-peer-review
each review gets a quality index
Authors and the Editors track the process –
can access the review
Manuscript revision upload,
or withdrawal for re-submission
Final evaluation of the revised manuscript
Authors may accept a direct publishing offer from
a subscribing journal or
choose to export the peer reviews to any journal
of their choice
6 weeks

21. pre-publication peer review
a bias to publish
BMC Medicine operates an 'open peer review' policy
meaning reviewers are asked to sign their reviews.
The pre-publication history including all submitted
versions, reviewers' reports and authors' responses
will be linked to form the published article.
Open access
Research articles published in BioMed Central's journals are
freely available online to the entire global research community:
- BioMed Central's website
- the National Institutes of Health's electronic depository
- PubMed Central

22. Post-publication via the Internet …

23. Post-publication on the Internet …
a virtual journal club –
correction of error in publications
“we show you when there are new papers posted
on Pubmed related to your interests and when
there are new discussions about those papers”

24. Grad students and post-docs …
contribute by sharing their insights about published data
that regularly occur in lab meetings and journal clubs
by summarizing papers and leaving comments build name
recognition

25. “Being a part of a virtual journal club is pretty
awesome.
I get to focus on an area that I'm interested in
with others, stay up on the latest research, and
get a diverse array of expert opinions.
And it's with scientists all over the world.
This is the way reviewing science should be.”
~ Matt, Cell Biologist

26. Peer review via the internet …
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Faster
Expensive … of time and money
more efficient
Inconsistent
Subjective
Inexpert/amateurish
Blocks innovation
Biased … gender, language, nationality,
against `negative studies’
• Open to abuse … conflicts of interest; politics
• Fails to determine fraud

27. The future …
pre- and post-publication peer review
“making continuous
but constructive criticism
of research a new norm of science”
(Horton, 2011 – written evidence to UK Parliament)
“blessing” upon
the science that has been reviewed
for its worthiness for publication
Richard Smith

29. The shape of peer-review in the future aimed at improvement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
standardizing procedures;
opening up the process;
blinding reviewers to the identity of authors;
reviewing protocols;
formal training of reviewers – standards and ethics
being more rigorous in selecting and deselecting reviewers;
using electronic review;
rewarding reviewers;
providing detailed feedback to reviewers;
using more checklists;
creating professional review agencies
… capacity
?