Peer review in open access scientific journals

journals has revolutionized scientific publishing. Open access to medical publications has the potential to boost the timely and widespread dissemination of new research findings and, ultimately, to have a more immediate impact on clinical practice than traditional publishing methods. However, several aspects of open access publishing remain to be discussed and clarified by the scientific community; among these is the value and process of open peer review. The value of peer review to editors and authors is well established in the traditional biomedical publication model. Most authors and editors would agree that a fair and thoughtful manuscript review by experts with considerable knowledge in a given research area is helpful to editors in judging the importance of the research question studied and the appropriateness of the methodology used. Moreover, experienced peer reviewers usually make instructive comments as to whether the authors' conclusions are supported by their data and whether their findings have been put in the wider context of what is already known about their research question. However, editors of several influential biomedical journals have expressed concern regarding various aspects of the peer review of submitted manuscripts, including whether generally accepted review processes are adequate to ensure appropriate and fair evaluation, and have called for more quantitative and qualitative studies on the issue. Editors sometimes make decisions about submitted manuscripts irrespective of the peer reviewers' comments; this occurs for a variety of reasons, including the fact that some peer reviews are not particularly helpful. 4 Nevertheless, traditional peer review has been considered an indispensable part of the editorial evaluation process —until such time as a more effective and fair system is developed and successfully applied in scientific publishing. 1 Although the value of a strong peer review process is felt to extend to the open access publication model, 5 at least one study has raised the concern that some new open access journals may have a less rigorous manuscript evaluation process than traditional subscription journals. 6 If this is so, it may reflect an expectation that post-publication review through open, published discourse will be swift and effective. However, while all manner of electronic journals are experimenting with reader input on published material, little is known about the scientific value of post-publication review in the modern era of open access publishing. Several questions arise. Can new capacities for open comment really assume the responsibilities, thoroughness and overall judgement of formal peer …