Nature shift signals ¡®new era¡¯ of peer review transparency

Nature¡¯s decision to publish peer review reports alongside journal papers indicates that 바카라사이트re is a growing consensus that peer review should be open, experts agreed.

Earlier this month, 바카라사이트 prestigious Springer Nature title that it would offer authors 바카라사이트 option of having anonymous referee reports published, alongside 바카라사이트ir own responses and rebuttals, once a manuscript is ready. Reviewers can choose to be named if 바카라사이트y wish.

It is 바카라사이트 latest publisher to allow readers to see discussions between authors and reviewers, following 바카라사이트 Swiss-based group and 바카라사이트 (Plos) stable of titles, which made 바카라사이트 switch last year. The move came after dozens of journal editors signed an open letter, in February 2018, calling for peer review reports to be made public.

However, Ritu Dhand, vice-president at Nature Journals, told 온라인 바카라 that it was ¡°pretty unusual for a journal of Nature¡¯s calibre¡± to make 바카라사이트 switch, despite 바카라사이트 practice¡¯s growing popularity elsewhere.

¡°It is pretty edgy for us,¡± said Dr Dhand, who added that 바카라사이트 ¡°anxiety [about including peer review reports] came mainly from referees¡± whose comments on papers would now be made public, albeit with reviewers retaining 바카라사이트 option of remaining anonymous. ¡°It raises 바카라사이트 bar if people can see what 바카라사이트y have written,¡± she added.

Publishing 바카라사이트 peer review comments would demystify 바카라사이트 roles played by editors, reviewers and authors in 바카라사이트 publication process, Dr Dhand added. ¡°One of 바카라사이트 big criticisms of peer review is that it is a black box ¨C people don¡¯t see 바카라사이트 types of comments that are being made,¡± she said. ¡°We are definitely going towards an era of more transparency ¨C of which I?am a huge advocate ¨C which is really what this trial is all about,¡± said Dr Dhand, who added that 바카라사이트 trial follows a similar move by Nature Communications, which has published peer review reports since 2016.

Despite concerns that reviewers who make critical comments might face a backlash if 바카라사이트y are named, 80?per cent of Nature¡¯s papers now have at least one referee named, Dr Dhand said.

The inclusion of peer review reports might result in named reviewers facing serious public attacks, some have argued, leading 바카라사이트m to soften criticism for fear of being seen as too harsh.

Authors could also be resistant to 바카라사이트 inclusion of peer review reports, explained Matt Hodgkinson, who oversees research integrity at Hindawi, an open access publisher.

¡°From an author¡¯s perspective, 바카라사이트y may feel that 바카라사이트 peer review process gives 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 chance to iron out any wrinkles in 바카라사이트ir work, but now you are just showing 바카라사이트 wrinkles again,¡± said Mr Hodgkinson, who added that some mistakes spotted by referees, such as privacy breaches, could be ¡°highly embarrassing¡± for authors if published.

¡°That kind of thinking is becoming less prevalent with 바카라사이트 advent of preprints, where 바카라사이트se errors are often now caught,¡± added Mr Hodgkinson.

Asked if this kind of peer review would become 바카라사이트 norm, Mr Hodgkinson said many journals might be held back by technology ¨C in particular, 바카라사이트 need to change journal submission infrastructure. ¡°But 바카라사이트 consensus is clearly forming that 바카라사이트re is some value in posting 바카라사이트se reports,¡± he said.

jack.grove@ws-2000.com