Expert Commentary on EMCrit

from ALIEM

from ALIEM

A few months ago, my friend Michelle Lin instituted a few new features on the Academic Life in EM Blog (ALIEM). She and her crew of awesome editors added pre-publication critique as well as post-publication, expert peer review. I have debated on numerous occasions in the FOAMosphere all the reasons I find pre-publication peer review to be an unnecessary vestige of a flawed publishing paradigm. Smarter folks than me have said the same thing. On often-visited sites like EMCrit, post-publication peer review happens automatically and with a width and breadth that traditional journals can’t hope for (I love you commenters!).

But there are a few interviews I do for the podcast in which I am a well-informed user, but not an expert. For these ‘casts I am interviewing an expert, but I am giving you just that single practitioner’s viewpoint. It would be nice to balance these podcasts with a separate expert’s take. For these situations, I am taking a page from Michelle’s book. Next Monday, I will have a podcast on PE teams with Oren Friedman. I reached out expert-commentto Jeff Kline to provide expert commentary on this podcast and he was kind enough to oblige. I personally don’t consider this to be peer review and I am staying away from the term entirely. Instead, look for the “expert commentary” symbol on select future podcasts.

You finished the 'cast,
Now get CME credit

Not a subcriber yet? Why the heck not?
By subscribing, you can...

  • Get CME hours
  • Support the show
  • Write it off on your taxes or get reimbursed by your department

Sign Up Today!

.

Subscribe Now

If you enjoyed this post, you will almost certainly enjoy our others. Subscribe to our email list to keep informed on all of the ED Critical Care goodness.

This Post was by , MD, published 4 months ago. We never spam; we hate spammers! Spammers probably work for the Joint Commission.

Comments

  1. good to hear. why dont you consider this a form of peer review?

    • the term is loaded by its associations with the prior, flawed paradigm. Instead of looking like we are capitulating to outdated forms; I want to move forward with what we are forging in the FOAM world.

      • I should also say, that some journals used to have expert commentary after the publication of major articles. J Trauma used to do it. It seems to have disappeared, but it was one thing that seemed to have worked.

  2. its challenging since you have not defined what constitutes expert commentary..whereas peer review has precedence and tradition. Having done peer review for journals, I know what is expected and what it does.

    As for expert commentary..I think if this is to be an improvement on existing, then you need to define its parameters.

    I am having same issue with PHARM blog, having moved to a prepublication peer review process. Still trying to sort out balance of creative writing and academic comment/review !

    I dont have the right answers yet but I think this general move is in right direction..and since you are regarded widely as a forerunner, its good to see.

  3. Hi Scott:

    Just an FYI, you’ll note that we actually use both pre- and post-publication peer review as detailed in the CJEM paper that is presently online and in press. It is, unfortunately, not open access because we can’t afford it. :(

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24742824

    Thanks for blogging about your efforts and role modelling how we can all continue to contribute different methods for rigour to our teaching online!

Speak Your Mind (Along with your name, job, and affiliation)