Hiding Behind the Curtain: Anonomyous Versus Open Peer Review
For more than 50 years peer review has guided the decision-making process of editors regarding the merit of publishing scientific work. Peer reviews can be influenced by knowledge of the authors’ identities as well as anonymity of the referee. The value of the current peer review system apparently offsets areas of dissatisfaction that include: (a) reviewer bias as a result of knowing author identity, (b) unequal valuation of reviewer versus author anonymity, (c) resource expense for authors, reviewers, editors, and journals, and (d) inhibition of free communication. This chapter discusses the merits of hiding reviewer and author identity in the peer review process as well as the increasing importance of post publication review.
KeywordsPeer Review Process Open Review Author Identity Author Anonymity Review Bias
- 4.Hagstrom W. The scientific community. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press; 1965.Google Scholar
- 5.Kemp E, Smith A, Buckingham M, et al. Open letter to senior editors of peer-review journals publishing in the field of stem cell biology. Euro Stem Cell. 2009;305:221–4.Google Scholar
- 6.Ghosh P. Stem cell research ‘biased’. BBC Today. Vol England: British Broadcasting Corporation; 2010:4 minutes 45 seconds.Google Scholar
- 8.Instructions to authors, American Journal of Epidemiology. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/aje/for_authors/general.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.
- 9.Instructions to authors, American Sociological Review. http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/submission.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.
- 10.Instructions to authors, Journal of Adolescent Health. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/505765/authorinstructions. Accessed 11 Mar 2010.
- 11.Ware M. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community – an international study. Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium; 2008. p. 32. Available on Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Peer+review+in+scholarly+journals:+perspective+of+the+scholarly+community+–+an+international+study.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart. Accessed 6 Nov 2011.
- 12.Lock S. A difficult balance: editorial peer review in medicine. Philadelphia: ISI Press; 1986. p. 122–3.Google Scholar
- 17.Editorial: Working double-blind. Nature. 2008;451:605–6.Google Scholar
- 18.Ware M, Consulting MW. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: The Publishers Association; 2008.Google Scholar
- 29.Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008:39.Google Scholar
- 31.BioMed Central. Dermatology publication and peer review process. http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdermatol/ifora/%23peerreview. Accessed 13 Mar 2010.
- 32.Baraniuk R. Challenges and opportunities for the open educaiton movement: a Connexions case study. In: Iiyoshi T, Kumar MSV, editors. Opening up education – the collective advancement of education through open technology, open content, and open knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008.Google Scholar
- 33.Baraniuk RG, and Cervenka K. Connexions White Paper: Building Communities and Sharing Knowledge. Houston, TX: Rice University; 2002.Google Scholar
- 34.Burrus C. Connexions: An open educational resources for the 21st century. Educ Technol. 2007;47:19–22.Google Scholar
- 35.Atkins DE, Brown JS, Hammond AL. A review of the open educational resources (OER) movement: achievments, challenges, and new opportunities. Report to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; 2007.Google Scholar
- 36.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Giving knowledge for free: the emergence of open educational resources. http://www.126.96.36.199/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9607041E.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2010.
- 39.Allesina S. Acclerating the pace of discovery by changing the peer review algorithm. CoRR. Chicago: University of Chicago; 2009. p. 9.Google Scholar