Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Open Peer Review 2.0 vs traditional blind peer-review: A head-to-head comparative experiment

The Medicine 2.0® conference in Toronto is currently conducting a unique experiment, comparing the traditional method of peer-reviewing submitted abstracts through invited experts, head-to-head with a "Digg"-like open peer-review mechanism to vote for submitted abstracts using a simple thumbs-up/thumbs-down rating system, with the additional ability for anyone to sign up as a peer-reviewer for a submitted abstract (see http://www.medicine20congress.com/ocs/vote.php, archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5YfTKzCST).
While the invited (closed) peer-review ends tomorrow (June 19th, 2008), the open peer-review will remain open until the conference. The conference organizer (Gunther Eysenbach) plans to analyze the data to evaluate to what degree "open" evaluations are biased or concordant with "expert" evaluations.

Citation suggestion: Gunther Eysenbach. Open Peer Review 2.0 vs traditional blind peer-review. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. 2008-06-18. URL:http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/06/open-peer-review-20-vs-traditional.html. Accessed: 2008-06-18. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/5YfURBnOz)

1 comment:

Nicolas Garcia said...

Really exciting initiative. It will be great to see the results of this innovative way of peer reviewing. Taking into account that the users of this page would be mainly proffesionals related with the field, probably the results of the open peer review shuold be even more accurate than those of the traditional system.