Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead?

on

  • 1,310 views

Tony Brown's emotive expose on the bias of medical research and publication. The flaws in our current paradigms.

Tony Brown's emotive expose on the bias of medical research and publication. The flaws in our current paradigms.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,310
Views on SlideShare
287
Embed Views
1,023

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
6
Comments
0

4 Embeds 1,023

http://medest118.com 612
http://intensivecarenetwork.com 391
http://medest118.wordpress.com 12
http://disqus.com 8

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Brown: Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Presentation Transcript

  • Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Professor Tony Brown Senior Staff Specialist Department of Emergency Medicine Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital
  • Competing Interests Declaration Professor Tony Brown Educational / research funding: Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shire. Avant.
  • 550,000
  • 550,000 > 1 / minute
  • 550,000 > 1 / minute >150 this morning
  • 550,000 > 1 / minute >150 this morning > 5,600 (MedlineTM)
  • Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Aims • What are journals for ? • What do they do ? • Who benefits ? • What are the problems ? • What are the alternatives ?
  • What are journals for ?
  • What are journals for ? • Registration • Certification • Awareness • Archiving
  • What do they do ?
  • What do they do ? • Online submission • Peer review • Editorial decision • Production • Publication
  • Who benefits ?
  • Who benefits ? • Author • Publisher • Editor / peer reviewers
  • What are the problems?
  • What are the problems? • Peer review • Most papers are rubbish • Research hijacked • Restricted full-text access
  • What are the problems? Peer review “Slow, expensive, ineffective, a lottery, biased, incapable of detecting fraud and prone to abuse” Smith R. BMJ 2004;329:242-4
  • What are the problems? Most papers are rubbish • “Words on paper rarely lead directly to change – and thank goodness they don’t, considering the rubbish that journals often publish”. Smith R. BMJ 2004;329:242-4 • Few trials are valid and relevant ( <1% – 7% ) Haynes RB. ACP J Club 1993;119:A22-A23 Scott I, Glaziou P. Med J Aust 2012;197:374-8
  • What are the problems? Research hijacked Radcliffe Publishing 2013 Harper Collins 2013
  • What are the problems? Restricted full-text access $24 billion biomedical publishing industry
  • What are the alternatives?
  • What are the alternatives? • Release ALL data / publish negative trials • Focus on the reader • Post publication review • ‘publish then filter’ • rating systems / Web 2.0 tools / crowdsourcing • Educational / translational focus …
  • What are the alternatives? Educational / translational focus Websites Blog posts Case studies Teaching videos Podcasts Elearning modules Apps ALL informed by the best literature
  • Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Conclusions • Not yet – but smelling badly ! • Return the focus back onto the reader • Expect and embrace all forms of post publication review • Focus on education / translation
  • Is the Peer Review Journal Dead? Conclusions • Not yet – but smelling badly … • Return the focus back onto the reader • Expect / embrace post publication review • Focus on education / translation • EXCEPTION ! Emerg Med Australas 2014; 26 (1). Feb issue