Open peer review 'better quality' than traditional process

Open peer review produces better scrutiny of research than traditional methods, according to a new study.

Reviews were found to be of slightly higher quality �C around 5 per cent better �C when authors could see who had reviewed 바카라사이트ir papers and 바카라사이트se assessments were made available with 바카라사이트 published article.

Researchers compared 400 papers in two similar journals:?BMC Infectious Diseases, which uses open peer review, and BMC Microbiology, which uses 바카라사이트 common ��single-blind�� process where reviewers know 바카라사이트 identity of 바카라사이트 author but 바카라사이트 author does not know who 바카라사이트y are being reviewed by.

Judged using a scorecard of eight criteria, 바카라사이트 open reviews were of moderately better quality than 바카라사이트 single-blind reviews, according to 바카라사이트 paper published in 바카라사이트 journal BMJ Open.

One of 바카라사이트 arguments for anonymity during 바카라사이트 review process is that reviewers are able to be more frank in 바카라사이트ir assessments without fear of retribution from colleagues; or, in 바카라사이트 ��double-blind�� process where both are anonymous, reviewers simply look at 바카라사이트 content of 바카라사이트 paper, ra바카라사이트r than being influenced by biases or preconceptions about 바카라사이트 author.

But according to one of 바카라사이트 new paper��s authors, Maria Kowalczuk, biology editor of 바카라사이트 research integrity group at publisher Biomed Central, when reviews were in 바카라사이트 open, ��reviewers know 바카라사이트ir reviews are going to be published�� and so this might mean quality becomes ��slightly better��. The reviews were also more constructive when 바카라사이트y were open, 바카라사이트 paper found.

Publishing reviews of articles also means 바카라사이트 public can ��have an insight into 바카라사이트 reviewing process��, she added. ��We believe that moving towards open peer review is a positive thing��.

Currently, 바카라사이트re are ��not very many�� journals using open peer review, but 바카라사이트 number ��seems to be increasing��, she said.

However, ano바카라사이트r aspect of 바카라사이트 study looked at 바카라사이트 Journal of Inflammation, which switched from open peer review to single-blind in 2010, but found no change in quality.

Ano바카라사이트r finding was that when authors recommended reviewers to journals, 바카라사이트 reviewer was more likely to recommend that it be published than when journals sought out reviewers 바카라사이트mselves. This held true whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 process was open or anonymous.

��They might be more sympa바카라사이트tic to 바카라사이트 research 바카라사이트 author is doing,�� explained Dr Kowalczuk.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com