Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review

Surgical Endoscopy

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 2275-2280

  Herron, Daniel M ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer model; Expert review; Peer review; Post publication review

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SKILL;

EID: 84864060222     PISSN: 09302794     EISSN: 14322218     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Jefferson R, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F (2002) Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 287:2784-2786
2. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F (2007) Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2). Article No. MR000016
3. Cole S, Cole JR, Simon GA (1981) Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 215:881-886
4. Rothwell PM, Martyn CN (2000) Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain 123:1964-1969
5. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2008) The effectiveness of the peer review process: inter-referee agreement and predictive validity of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie. Angew Chem Int Ed 47:7173-7178
6. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2010) The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: a utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. PLoS One 5(6):e11344
7. Bornmann L, Daniel HD (2010) Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. PLoS One 5(10):e13345
8. Arms WY (2002) What are the alternatives to peer review? Quality control in scholarly publishing on the web. J Electron Publ 8:1
9. Mandavilli A (2011) Trial by twitter. Nature 469:286-287
10. Ware M. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives, Publishing Research Consortium 2008. http://www.publishing research.org.uk. Accessed 2 Feb. 2011
11. ArXiv.org. http://www.arxiv.org. Accessed 2 Feb. 2011
12. Description of the RAND function in Excel. Article ID 828795, Rev. 6.0. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/828795. Accessed 5 Jan 2011
13. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S et al (2008) What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 101:507-514
14. Galton F (1907) Vox Populi. Nature 75:450-451
15. Galton F (1907) The ballot box. Nature 75:509
16. Surowiecki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Random House, New York
17. Nature.com. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535. html. Accessed 2 Feb. 2012
18. Hall JC. How to dissect surgical journals. http://www.anzsurg. com/view/0/dissectingSurgicalJournals.html. Accessed 23 Dec. 2012
19. Smith R (1997) Peer review: reform or revolution? BMJ 315:759-760