For det andre går den alminnelige utvikling i
retning av stadig mer åpenhet både i samfunnet
som sådan og i ruedisinske fagmilj!Zier. Hemme–
lighetskremmeri er ikke lenger akseptert, og noen
tidsskrifter har av denne grunn begynt å identifi–
sere vurderere overfor forfattere og planlegger
også å bekjentgj!Zire overfor leseme hvem som har
vcert med på å vurdere en artikkel (27).
For det tredje kan moderne informasjonstekno–
logi vcere i ferd med å revolusjonere all
vitenskapelig publisering. På Internett gjelder
ikke lenger argumentet om begrenset spalteplass
når en artikkel skal refuseres. Dessuten plan–
legges flere nettsteder der forfatterne kan publi–
sere sine arbeider uten noen form for forhånds–
vurdering.
Kanskje blir fremtidens peer review åpen, og
slik at alle som j2insker det, kan komme med
kritiske kommentarer som knyttes til en elektro–
nisk versjon av allerede publiserte artikler?
Litteratur
l . Webster's NewTwentieth Century Dictionary.
Second Edition. NewYork: Simon
&
Schuster,
1983.
2. Lock S. Adifficult balance. Editorial peer review
in medicine. London:The Nuffield Provincial
Hospitals Trust, 1985.
3. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century
scientific journalism. JAMA 1990;263:1321-2.
4. Burnham JC. The evolution of editorial peer
review. JAMA 1990;263:1323-9.
5. Rennie D.Guarding the guardians: a conference
on editorial peer review. JAMA 1986;256:2391-2.
6. Guarding the guardians. Research on editorial
peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1317-441.
7. The Second International Congress on Peer
Review in Biomedical Publication. JAMA
1994;272:79-174.
8. TheThird Congress on Biomedical Peer Review.
JAMA 1998;280:203-306.
9. Overbeke J. The state of evidence: what we
know and what we don 't know about journal
peer review.
I: Godlee F, Jefferson T, red. Peer review in
health sciences. London:BMJ Books,1999:32-44.
10. BinghamC. Peer review on the Internet: are
there faster, fairer, more effectivemethods of
peer review?
I: Godlee F, JeffersonT, red. Peer review in
health sciences. London:BMJ Books,1999:205-23.
11. Colaianni LA. Peer review in journals indexed in
IndexMedicus. JAMA 1994;272:156-8.
12. WellerAC. Editorial peer review in US medical
journals. JAMA 1990;263:1344-7.
22
13. NylennaM, Riis P, Karlsson
Y.
Are refereeing
forms helpful?A study among medical referees
in Denrnark,Norway and Sweden. European
Science Editing 1995; Juni (no. 55):3-5.
14. NylennaM. What do referees actually do?
Eur JAnaesthesiol1997;14:118-21.
15. FletcherRH, Fletcher SW. The effectiveness of
editorial peer review. I: Godlee F, Jefferson T,
red. Peer review in health sciences. London:BMJ
Books,1999:45-56.
16. BlackN, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R,
Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a
goodreview for a general medical journal?
JAMA 1998;280:231-3.
17. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R,
BlackN. Effect of blinding and unmasking on
the quality of peer review. JAMA 1998;280:234-7.
18. Godlee F,Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the
quality ofpeer review of blinding reviewers and
asking them to sign their reports. JAMA
1998;280:237-40.
19. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, BlackN,
Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality
of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations:
a randamised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-7.
20. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review
- scientific quality control or smoikescreen?
BMJ 1999;318:44-5.
21. Pierie J-PEN,Walvoort HC, OverbekeAJPM.
Readers evaluation of effect of peer review and
editing on quality of artides in the Nederlands
Tijdschrift voorGeneeskunde. Lancet
1996;348:1480-3.
22. Sweitzer BJ, Cullen DJ.Howweil does a
journal's peer review process function? JAMA
1994;272:152-3.
23. Horrobin D
F.
The philosophical basis of peer
review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA
1990;263:1438-41.
24. Godlee F, Dickersin K. Bias, subjectivity,
chance, and conflict of interest in editoria1 decis–
ions. I: Godlee F, JeffersonT, red. Peer review in
health sciences. London:BMJ Books,l999:57-78.
25. NylennaM, Riis P, Karlsson Y. Multiple blinded
reviews of the same two manuscripts. Effects of
referee characteristics and publication language.
JAMA 1994;272:149-51.
26. Smith
R.
Peer review: reform or revolution?
BMJ 1997;315:759-60.
27. Smith R.Opening up BMJ peer review.
BMJ 1999;318:44-5.
Klinisk Kjemi iNorden
J,
2000
