THE MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA INTERNET PEER-REVIEW STUDY

Background Peer review of medical papers is a confidential consultancy between the reviewer and the journal editor, and has been criticised for its potential bias and inadequacy. We explored the potential of th e internet for open peer review to see whether this approach improved the quality and outcome df peer review. Methods Research and review ar ticles that had been accepted for publication in The Medical Journal o f Australia (MJA) were published together with the reviewers' reports on the worldwide web, with the consent of authors and referees. Select ed readers' e-mailed comments were electronically published as additio nal commentary; authors could reply or revise their paper in response to readers' comments. Articles were edited and published in print afte r this open review. Findings 60 (81%) of 74 authors agreed to take par t in the study, together with 150 (92%) of 162 reviewers. There was no significant difference in the performance of commissioned reviewers b efore and during the study. Four articles were not included because of insufficient time before print publication. Of the remaining 56 paper s, 28 received 52 comments from 42 readers (2% of readers submitted co mments). Most readers' comments were short and specific, and seven art icles were changed by the authors in response. Interpretation Open pee r review is acceptable to most authors and reviewers. Postpublication review by readers on the internet is no substitute for commissioned pr epublication review, but can provide editors with valuable input from individuals who would not otherwise be consulted. Readers also gain in sight into the processes of peer review and publication.