Home|Journals|Articles by Year Follow on Twitter

Directory for Medical Articles
 

Open Access

Letter to the Editor



Open peer review: An initiative to look out for

Ganesh Singh Dharmshaktu.

Abstract
The recent decision to share the pre-publication history and open peer review including previous version of article and reviewers’/editors’ comments by leading medical journals for all its research articles is being considered as a welcome trend. The initiative starting from fall 2014 by one of these journals aims to provide a milieu for better accountability of reviewers and editor as they chisel the research work and in this way assist authors [1].
The changes are best likely to not affect the scientific temper and quality of research work. Studies have shown that the quality of peer review is not affected by knowledge of reviewers about potential web publications of the prepublication history and their reviews [2].
Certain trials have indicated a role of potential improvement when open peer review is used for randomized controlled trials [3].
Besides it, the prospects of due credit to reviewers by this initiative can be encouraging for better work. This also will teach a lesson or two to future reviewers or reviewers of diverse disciplines.
I have certain points that in my imagination may result as a byproduct of this initiative. If several readers counter-comment on a piece of open review about a given article and highlight reasonable fallacies in it, shall the article be withdrawn for fresh peer review or worse still be retracted on that basis. Another prospect that can turn into a reality is the witch hunting of certain reviewers who have considerable number of bad reviews as measured by negative responses their reviews gather. Shall those reviewers be blacklisted by medical community or sacked from the review board?
If this is an idea whose time has come is to be seen in the near future but there seems to be no harm to embrace it if we aim to be a transparent, vibrant, and relevant society.

Key words: Open peer review, Research, Publication, Review process



Similar Articles

Biovalue in Human Brain Banking: Applications and Challenges for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases.
Vedam-Mai V
Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2022; 2389(): 209-220

Occupant health in buildings: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the opinions of building professionals and implications on research.
Awada M, Becerik-Gerber B, White E, Hoque S, O'Neill Z, Pedrielli G, Wen J, Wu T
Building and environment. 2022; 207(): 108440

Advancing Our Understanding of Brain Disorders: Research Using Postmortem Brain Tissue.
Curtis MA, Vedam-Mai V
Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2022; 2389(): 201-208

Research advances on how metformin improves memory impairment in "chemobrain".
Alhowail A, Chigurupati S
Neural regeneration research. 2022; 17(1): 15-19

The unintended consequences of the pandemic on non-pandemic research activities.
Walker J, Brewster C, Fontinha R, Haak-Saheem W, Benigni S, Lamperti F, Ribaudo D
Research policy. 2022; 51(1): 104369


Full-text options


Latest Statistics about COVID-19
• pubstat.org


Add your Article(s) to Indexes
• citeindex.org






Covid-19 Trends and Statistics
ScopeMed.com
CiteIndex.org
CancerLine
FoodsLine
PhytoMedline
Follow ScopeMed on Twitter
Author Tools
eJPort Journal Hosting
About BiblioMed
License Information
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

The articles in Bibliomed are open access articles licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
ScopeMed is a Database Service for Scientific Publications. Copyright © ScopeMed® Information Services.



ScopeMed Web Sites