A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science

Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2017-06, Vol.12 (6), p.e0179031-e0179031
Main Authors: Almquist, Martin, von Allmen, Regula S, Carradice, Dan, Oosterling, Steven J, McFarlane, Kirsty, Wijnhoven, Bas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Annan medicin och hälsovetenskap
Bias
Biology and Life Sciences
Clinical trials
Computer and Information Science
Computer and Information Sciences
CPAs
Data- och informationsvetenskap (Datateknik)
Decision making
Editors
Error detection
Evaluation
Feasibility studies
Female
Humans
Intellectual property
Internet
Joint surgery
Male
Medical and Health Sciences
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Methods
Middle Aged
Natural Sciences
Naturvetenskap
Online Systems
Other Medical Sciences
Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified
Peer review
Peer Review, Health Care
Periodical publishing
Permissible error
Physical Sciences
Prospective Studies
Quality
Questionnaires
Research and Analysis Methods
Reviews
Science
Services
Social Sciences
Studies
Surgery
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Surveying
Transparency
World Wide Web
Övrig annan medicin och hälsovetenskap
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3
container_end_page e0179031
container_issue 6
container_start_page e0179031
container_title PloS one
container_volume 12
creator Almquist, Martin
von Allmen, Regula S
Carradice, Dan
Oosterling, Steven J
McFarlane, Kirsty
Wijnhoven, Bas
description Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0179031
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1914826973</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A497380446</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2351323c3e2b44158e197e7ddb14883b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A497380446</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk11r2zAUhs3YWLtu_2BshsHYLpJZH5bsm0Eo-wgEClsZuxOSfOwoOJIr2en676ckbolHL4bQB0fPeW290kmS1yibI8LRp40bvJXtvHMW5hniZUbQk-QclQTPGM7I05P1WfIihE2W5aRg7HlyhuOEM8rOk9-LtPMudKB7s4M09EN1lzqbSpsaa91OHsLOtsZCWjs_bPdj2gH41MPOwK2xTerqNAy-MVq2adAGrIaXybNatgFejfNFcv31y_Xl99nq6tvycrGaac5QPyulRBwVqpCU1KTiNWcFVhpYXQHFWuFSqwoxDhUHrAsKdVwwCXWOWa4luUjeHmW71gUxehIEKhEtMCs5icTySFRObkTnzVb6O-GkEYeA842Qvje6BYFJjggmmgBWlKK8AFRy4FWlolpBVNRaHbXCLXSDmqi1Qxe7il0EEJoClliXgstCiXg2JpRSmUAKVRp4rcsii3Kfx58f1BZi3PZethPV6Y41a9G4nchpibJsL_BhFPDuZoDQi60JGtpWWnDDwYac0JIUNKLv_kEfN2ukGhn9MLZ28bt6LyoWNAJFRimL1PwRKrYKtkbH91ibGJ8kfJwkRKaHP30jhxDE8ueP_2evfk3Z9yfsGmTbr4Nrh944G6YgPYI6PvbgoX4wGcU7ieV074bYl5MYyymmvTm9oIek-_ohfwEMVhvE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1914826973</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Almquist, Martin ; von Allmen, Regula S ; Carradice, Dan ; Oosterling, Steven J ; McFarlane, Kirsty ; Wijnhoven, Bas</creator><contributor>Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A</contributor><creatorcontrib>Almquist, Martin ; von Allmen, Regula S ; Carradice, Dan ; Oosterling, Steven J ; McFarlane, Kirsty ; Wijnhoven, Bas ; Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A</creatorcontrib><description>Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P&lt;0.001). Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28662046</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Annan medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Clinical trials ; Computer and Information Science ; Computer and Information Sciences ; CPAs ; Data- och informationsvetenskap (Datateknik) ; Decision making ; Editors ; Error detection ; Evaluation ; Feasibility studies ; Female ; Humans ; Intellectual property ; Internet ; Joint surgery ; Male ; Medical and Health Sciences ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Natural Sciences ; Naturvetenskap ; Online Systems ; Other Medical Sciences ; Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified ; Peer review ; Peer Review, Health Care ; Periodical publishing ; Permissible error ; Physical Sciences ; Prospective Studies ; Quality ; Questionnaires ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Reviews ; Science ; Services ; Social Sciences ; Studies ; Surgery ; Surgical Procedures, Operative ; Surveying ; Transparency ; World Wide Web ; Övrig annan medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-06, Vol.12 (6), p.e0179031-e0179031</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Almquist et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Almquist et al 2017 Almquist et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0953-1188</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1914826973/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1914826973?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,25732,27903,27904,36991,36992,44569,53770,53772,74873</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28662046$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://lup.lub.lu.se/record/c4e2a2c9-7a8b-43f6-bbb0-1b1dce7fc980$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A</contributor><creatorcontrib>Almquist, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Allmen, Regula S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carradice, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oosterling, Steven J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McFarlane, Kirsty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wijnhoven, Bas</creatorcontrib><title>A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P&lt;0.001). Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Annan medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Computer and Information Science</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>CPAs</subject><subject>Data- och informationsvetenskap (Datateknik)</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Editors</subject><subject>Error detection</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Feasibility studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intellectual property</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Joint surgery</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Natural Sciences</subject><subject>Naturvetenskap</subject><subject>Online Systems</subject><subject>Other Medical Sciences</subject><subject>Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Peer Review, Health Care</subject><subject>Periodical publishing</subject><subject>Permissible error</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Services</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Procedures, Operative</subject><subject>Surveying</subject><subject>Transparency</subject><subject>World Wide Web</subject><subject>Övrig annan medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk11r2zAUhs3YWLtu_2BshsHYLpJZH5bsm0Eo-wgEClsZuxOSfOwoOJIr2en676ckbolHL4bQB0fPeW290kmS1yibI8LRp40bvJXtvHMW5hniZUbQk-QclQTPGM7I05P1WfIihE2W5aRg7HlyhuOEM8rOk9-LtPMudKB7s4M09EN1lzqbSpsaa91OHsLOtsZCWjs_bPdj2gH41MPOwK2xTerqNAy-MVq2adAGrIaXybNatgFejfNFcv31y_Xl99nq6tvycrGaac5QPyulRBwVqpCU1KTiNWcFVhpYXQHFWuFSqwoxDhUHrAsKdVwwCXWOWa4luUjeHmW71gUxehIEKhEtMCs5icTySFRObkTnzVb6O-GkEYeA842Qvje6BYFJjggmmgBWlKK8AFRy4FWlolpBVNRaHbXCLXSDmqi1Qxe7il0EEJoClliXgstCiXg2JpRSmUAKVRp4rcsii3Kfx58f1BZi3PZethPV6Y41a9G4nchpibJsL_BhFPDuZoDQi60JGtpWWnDDwYac0JIUNKLv_kEfN2ukGhn9MLZ28bt6LyoWNAJFRimL1PwRKrYKtkbH91ibGJ8kfJwkRKaHP30jhxDE8ueP_2evfk3Z9yfsGmTbr4Nrh944G6YgPYI6PvbgoX4wGcU7ieV074bYl5MYyymmvTm9oIek-_ohfwEMVhvE</recordid><startdate>20170629</startdate><enddate>20170629</enddate><creator>Almquist, Martin</creator><creator>von Allmen, Regula S</creator><creator>Carradice, Dan</creator><creator>Oosterling, Steven J</creator><creator>McFarlane, Kirsty</creator><creator>Wijnhoven, Bas</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AGCHP</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>D95</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0953-1188</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170629</creationdate><title>A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science</title><author>Almquist, Martin ; von Allmen, Regula S ; Carradice, Dan ; Oosterling, Steven J ; McFarlane, Kirsty ; Wijnhoven, Bas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Annan medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Computer and Information Science</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>CPAs</topic><topic>Data- och informationsvetenskap (Datateknik)</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Editors</topic><topic>Error detection</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Feasibility studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intellectual property</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Joint surgery</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Natural Sciences</topic><topic>Naturvetenskap</topic><topic>Online Systems</topic><topic>Other Medical Sciences</topic><topic>Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Peer Review, Health Care</topic><topic>Periodical publishing</topic><topic>Permissible error</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Services</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Procedures, Operative</topic><topic>Surveying</topic><topic>Transparency</topic><topic>World Wide Web</topic><topic>Övrig annan medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Almquist, Martin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>von Allmen, Regula S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carradice, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oosterling, Steven J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McFarlane, Kirsty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wijnhoven, Bas</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale_Opposing Viewpoints In Context</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest - Health &amp; Medical Complete保健、医学与药学数据库</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies &amp; aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SWEPUB Lunds universitet full text</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SWEPUB Lunds universitet</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Almquist, Martin</au><au>von Allmen, Regula S</au><au>Carradice, Dan</au><au>Oosterling, Steven J</au><au>McFarlane, Kirsty</au><au>Wijnhoven, Bas</au><au>Andrade-Navarro, Miguel A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-06-29</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0179031</spage><epage>e0179031</epage><pages>e0179031-e0179031</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Peer review is important to the scientific process. However, the present system has been criticised and accused of bias, lack of transparency, failure to detect significant breakthrough and error. At the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), after surveying authors' and reviewers' opinions on peer review, we piloted an open online forum with the aim of improving the peer review process. In December 2014, a web-based survey assessing attitudes towards open online review was sent to reviewers with a BJS account in Scholar One. From April to June 2015, authors were invited to allow their manuscripts to undergo online peer review in addition to the standard peer review process. The quality of each review was evaluated by editors and editorial assistants using a validated instrument based on a Likert scale. The survey was sent to 6635 reviewers. In all, 1454 (21.9%) responded. Support for online peer review was strong, with only 10% stating that they would not subject their manuscripts to online peer review. The most prevalent concern was about intellectual property, being highlighted in 118 of 284 comments (41.5%). Out of 265 eligible manuscripts, 110 were included in the online peer review trial. Around 7000 potential reviewers were invited to review each manuscript. In all, 44 of 110 manuscripts (40%) received 100 reviews from 59 reviewers, alongside 115 conventional reviews. The quality of the open forum reviews was lower than for conventional reviews (2.13 (± 0.75) versus 2.84 (± 0.71), P&lt;0.001). Open online peer review is feasible in this setting, but it attracts few reviews, of lower quality than conventional peer reviews.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28662046</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0179031</doi><tpages>e0179031</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0953-1188</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2017-06, Vol.12 (6), p.e0179031-e0179031
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_1914826973
source Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); PubMed Central
subjects Adult
Annan medicin och hälsovetenskap
Bias
Biology and Life Sciences
Clinical trials
Computer and Information Science
Computer and Information Sciences
CPAs
Data- och informationsvetenskap (Datateknik)
Decision making
Editors
Error detection
Evaluation
Feasibility studies
Female
Humans
Intellectual property
Internet
Joint surgery
Male
Medical and Health Sciences
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Methods
Middle Aged
Natural Sciences
Naturvetenskap
Online Systems
Other Medical Sciences
Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified
Peer review
Peer Review, Health Care
Periodical publishing
Permissible error
Physical Sciences
Prospective Studies
Quality
Questionnaires
Research and Analysis Methods
Reviews
Science
Services
Social Sciences
Studies
Surgery
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Surveying
Transparency
World Wide Web
Övrig annan medicin och hälsovetenskap
title A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T13%3A02%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20prospective%20study%20on%20an%20innovative%20online%20forum%20for%20peer%20reviewing%20of%20surgical%20science&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Almquist,%20Martin&rft.date=2017-06-29&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0179031&rft.epage=e0179031&rft.pages=e0179031-e0179031&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0179031&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA497380446%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c761t-9aa1718b8a43f3d7f7682bce6fde42cb29cbd167ed7e2c84efd7e6aef5265ca3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1914826973&rft_id=info:pmid/28662046&rft_galeid=A497380446&rfr_iscdi=true