Study suggests that making reviewers’ reports freely readable doesn’t compromise peer-review process.
These study results are indeed surprising and welcome for proponents for open science, but we agree with Dalmeet’s concluding comments: Publishers (and research institutions) need to do more to encourage peer review and to recognise the contribution made by peer reviewers.
The analysis, published on 18 January in Nature Communications1, also indicates that open reviewers mostly prefer to remain anonymous, and that they don’t take any longer to complete reviews than in the conventional process.
“I think the case for publishing peer reviews is quite clear in terms of transparency and accountability,” says Tony Ross-Hellauer, an information scientist at the Graz University of Technology in Austria who conducted a 2017 survey about open peer review. “In terms of clearing away some doubts about publishing peer reviews, I think this study is really good news.”