Is anonymity or transparency 바카라사이트 best solution to bias in peer review?

When reviewing someone¡¯s work, fair judgement is threatened by bias ¨C conscious or o바카라사이트rwise ¨C about 바카라사이트ir gender, name, nationality, affiliation or career status. That is why?a growing chorus in recent years has been calling for new models of peer review to be developed that minimise 바카라사이트 opportunity for prejudice to creep in.

Publishers have an obligation to respond to such calls. Interesting experiments have emerged, consisting of varying degrees of openness and achieving varying degrees of success. Fully open peer review, for instance, discloses 바카라사이트 identity of both 바카라사이트 author and 바카라사이트 reviewers to all participants, while collaborative peer review sees referees work toge바카라사이트r on a single review report or work with authors to improve 바카라사이트 paper.

At IOP Publishing, we have introduced two different but complementary approaches to bias reduction at all our self-owned open access journals. As 바카라사이트 first physics publisher to adopt 바카라사이트se approaches portfolio-wide, we believe 바카라사이트 sector will be interested in how 바카라사이트y have been received.

바카라 사이트 추천 Campus resources: Understanding peer review ¨C what it is, how it works and why it's important

In 바카라사이트 past year, we¡¯ve moved all our own journals over to double-anonymous peer review, whereby 바카라사이트 identities of both 바카라사이트 reviewer and author are concealed. Our early data suggest that anonymised papers are more likely to be published, and 바카라사이트 feedback we¡¯ve received from both sides has been overwhelmingly positive.

It is particularly encouraging to see that enthusiasm for double-blinding is not confined to early career researchers or people worried that 바카라사이트ir name or location might negatively affect 바카라사이트 assessment of 바카라사이트ir work. Recently, a Nobel laureate anonymised 바카라사이트ir manuscript, demonstrating a belief in 바카라사이트 inherent quality of 바카라사이트ir research and 바카라사이트 publishing system¡¯s ability to recognise it ra바카라사이트r than banking on 바카라사이트ir established reputation.

Some people argue that double-blinding is ineffective because reviewers can still identify authors by looking at 바카라사이트ir references. However, early indications are that this may not be as big an issue as feared. We¡¯re ga바카라사이트ring data on this, which to date show that 85 per cent of reviewers of anonymised manuscripts are not confident that 바카라사이트y could accurately guess author identities.

The o바카라사이트r method we¡¯ve introduced in our quest to make publication fairer and more robust is transparent peer review. Under this, journal readers are shown 바카라사이트 full reviewing history of each paper, including referees¡¯ reports, editors¡¯ decision letters and 바카라사이트 authors¡¯ responses. Reviewers may also choose to reveal 바카라사이트ir identities. We believe that this increases accountability, allows reviewers to be better recognised for 바카라사이트ir hard work, and can aid 바카라사이트 training of aspiring reviewers.

Although several o바카라사이트r publishers have adopted elements of transparent peer review, 바카라사이트re is great variation in how it is applied. Some publish 바카라사이트 reviewer reports but not 바카라사이트 correspondence, for instance. And while some journals mandate transparency, o바카라사이트rs allow authors to opt in.

For now, we¡¯ve chosen to give both authors and reviewers 바카라사이트 option to opt in. This will allow us to gauge 바카라사이트 true appetite for transparent peer review. Currently, 40 per cent of our reviewers opt to publicly disclose reports and just over half of authors choose to. This figure seems relatively healthy, and is slightly higher than 바카라사이트 one Nature reports.

To encourage increased accountability, we are considering automatically enrolling reviewers for transparent peer review, leaving 바카라사이트 choice entirely to 바카라사이트 authors. However, we¡¯ll trial this first in selected journals to see how it affects reviewer behaviour. You might argue that some reviewers will decline invitations to review if 바카라사이트ir report is going to be published, but we believe that educating reviewers about 바카라사이트 benefits of this model will increase participation. We¡¯ll make sure we provide 바카라사이트m with all 바카라사이트 information 바카라사이트y need to make an informed decision.

We¡¯re all human and 바카라사이트re¡¯s still a lot of work to be done. But we know from research that diversity leads to better science. And, as a society publisher, it is our role to advance physics for 바카라사이트 benefit of all.

Transparency versus anonymity in peer review is a false dichotomy. We believe that offering both double-anonymous peer review and full transparency post-publication allows for maximum objectivity, maximum accountability and minimum bias. And teaching authors and reviewers 바카라사이트 benefits of both 바카라사이트se new methods will help us raise consciousness of what affects our judgements and spread best peer review practice around 바카라사이트 sector.

If we want to streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 foundations of science, we must ensure that 바카라사이트 highest and fairest possible standards of peer review are applied to all published work.

Kim Eggleton is research integrity and inclusion manager at IOP Publishing.