From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 06:18:59 +0000 I'm a bit puzzled, and hope someone can clarify, The Internet Journal of Medical Education, states: "This is a peer reviewed journal. Every published article has been reviewed by members of the editorial board and the editor-in-chief. - " Is this a standard means of doing peer review for medical journals? I ask, in part because of Sandy"s and Anthony's discussion, but also because this method, i.e. review by editorial board and editor seems to be the standard means ISPUB uses for all its journals. Am I mistaken in this understanding? I am also note the claim below from ISPUB and am interested in anything besides the statement of 90 internet titles, backing it up. What's the evidence on this? "ISPUB.com s... has grown to be one of the largest independent online medical publishers." I ask these questions because I regularly get questions from University Faculty regarding the quality of the OA journals they run across or are solicited for manuscripts for. They want to know about quality measures, reputation, cost, impact, etc. So, what am I to make of this system of reviewing, is it standard for medical themed journals? For OA journals in particular? I am aware that some journals not in medical fields use similar review systems, without the full panoply of reviewers, blind review, double blind etc. where the editor and editorial board make the basic determinations, but wasn't aware that was also used for reviewing medical literature. Any comments or insights welcome Thank you Chuck Hamaker ________________________________________ From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 09:14:42 +0100 I just do not entirely agree with this Ken. I speak as someone who has had responsibility for hundreds of journals but finished my publishing career in 2010. Now in some reputable companies there are no editors-in-chief and the final decisions are made by in-house staff. I am told that decisions are mostly easy to make on the basis of reports from referees In many disreputable companies there may be an editor listed and there may be an editorial board but are these people being asked to referee papers and, if so, how is the decision to publish being reached? We do not know. I have in the past asked editorial board members for new OA journals if they were given anything to do and they have been surprised to find if they are on the board. I was interested because the editorial board members were people I knew and who were active in journals I was responsible for. I wondered whether their new jobs were taking up time I wanted from them. Of course I know that most good referees review for a number of journals. It is more complicated now for all journals. When I started in publishing we used to say to editors - how you decide on what is worthy to be published is up to you and your referees. Our work starts when you deliver the manuscript. Now the actual duties are described as Sandy pointed out in an agreement and the publishers can see at least how quickly the refereeing is being done through online editorial questions. Editors are called to account or at least advised. There are clauses allowing dismissal of editors by the publisher and maintenance of quality is one reason for dismissal - though I am sure this is rarely invoked. Anthony