 |
|
Congress on Biomedical Peer Review
History, Ethics, and Plans for the Future
Drummond Rennie, MD;
Annette Flanagin, RN, MA
JAMA. 1998;280:213.
The articles published in this issue of JAMA were presented during the Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, held September 1997, in Prague, Czech Republic.1-3 The congress was a joint effort of JAMA, BMJ, and Project HOPE and was attended by scientific editors, publishers, and communicators from 46 countries.
The congress was successor to 2 previous congresses, held in 1989 and 1993, to present research into the editorial process of scientific publication, particularly peer review. These first 2 congresses received 50 and 110 abstracts, respectively, and the best articles from the congresses were published in JAMA.4-5 The third congress received 160 abstracts, from which 91 abstracts were selected for presentation after undergoing double-blind review. Abstracts submitted for the third congress generally demonstrated improved quality in research and included several randomized controlled trials on masked peer review.
The articles in this issue of THE JOURNAL were first presented in Prague and then submitted to JAMA to be considered for publication. After undergoing JAMA's usual review process, these 33 articles were accepted for publication. JAMA editors contributed to 6 of the articles, the 2 editorials, and the opening address published in this issue. Following our policy on conflict of interest,6(p110) editors who contributed to these articles were not involved in the evaluation or review of the submitted manuscripts and were not present during discussions about their manuscript's disposition.
Results of research into peer review and editorial processes will be used to improve the manner in which science is reviewed, selected, and disseminated. While we believe it is unlikely that any authors or editors would experience harm if the papers they wrote or edited were part of a study, we encourage all who undertake research into the editorial process to inform prospective participants and to consider the ethics of such research.7 For example, we inform prospective authors that we routinely study our editorial processes. JAMA's Instructions for Authors includes the following: "Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically analyzed as part of research to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Identifying information remains confidential."8 We use this type of research to routinely monitor our editorial performance (eg, tracking turn-around times for peer review, editorial decisions, and publication).
In addition, our policy on editorial audits and research states that "any research conducted should not interfere with the review process or the ultimate editorial decision. . . . If a research project involves a change in the journal's usual review process (eg, random assignment to a different review procedure), authors should be informed and given the opportunity to choose whether they want their manuscripts to be included in the study."6(p158) Thus, authors whose manuscripts would be handled in a manner that differs from the usual process as part of a prospective study are first informed of the study and its confidential nature, given the opportunity to remove their manuscript from the study, and assured that their decision to participate or not to participate would not affect the review or disposition of their manuscript. Similarly, authors who take part in surveys are informed of the nature of the survey and assured that confidentiality will be maintained; these authors can choose not to participate simply by not completing the survey. Reviewers and editors, whose recommendations and decisions are the subject of prospective research, are also informed in advance, given the opportunity to opt out of the study without affecting their status, and assured that confidentiality will be maintained.
We have tentatively selected Barcelona, Spain, and September 2001 as the location and date for the Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. To stimulate new research into peer review and scientific publication and to encourage additional improvements in the quality of research conducted and presented, a call for research protocols will be announced at the end of 1998. In the interim, additional information about the Peer Review Congress is available on the Congress Web site at http://www.ama-assn.org/peer.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
|
We acknowledge funding from the following organizations who sponsored attendance of the congress by 60 editor scholars: the Reuter Foundation, Pfizer Inc, Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Glaxo Wellcome, Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical, Procter & Gamble, Wyeth-Ayerst, Schering-Plough Corporation, Smith & Nephew Inc, Searle, an anonymous American medical editor, Medtronic Inc, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical Inc, Mosby, Amgen, Kyowa Kikaku Ltd, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, Natren Inc, Hewlett-Packard Company, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute.
We also thank all who submitted abstracts for consideration as well as the members of the Congress Advisory Board. Advisory Board members' names are listed on .
Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and The Journal and not those of the American Medical Association
Corresponding author: Annette Flanagin, RN, MA, JAMA, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610 (e-mail: Annette_Flanagin{at}ama-assn.org).
Dr Rennie is Deputy Editor (West) and Ms Flanagin is Associate Senior Editor, JAMA.
REFERENCES
|
1. International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. American Medical Association Web site. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/peer. Accessed June 11, 1998.
2. Methodical progress: applying the scientific method to the processes of science can be illuminating. The Economist. 1997;344:89-90.
3. Stephenson J. Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review. JAMA. 1997;278:1389-1391.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review: selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1990;263(theme issue):1317-1441.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
5. The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA. 1994;272(theme issue):91-173.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
6. Iverson C, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa P, et al. American Medical Association Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 9th ed. Baltimore, Md: William & Wilkins; 1998.
7. Olson CM, Glass RM, Thacker SB, Stroup DF. Ethical issues in studying submissions to a medical journal. JAMA. 1998;280:290-291.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Instructions for authors. JAMA. 1998;280:19-26. Also available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/info/auinst.html.
RELATED ARTICLE
The International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications Advisory Board
JAMA. 1998;280(3):211.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Effects of Editorial Peer Review: A Systematic Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2784-2786.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reviewers, Authors, and Editors: Balance of Power
Bressler
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:524-526.
FULL TEXT
|
