In the beginning of my career I was proud to be asked to do a review. A review took me a lot of time. But it was a useful experience and helped me to write better understandable articles. My personal experience with review was mostly positive. The reviews improved my manuscripts. Now I get about 2 invitations a week and I have to decline frequently although it usually takes now about 2 to 3 h to do a sorrow review. However especially from Eastern Europe there are manuscripts which are just a pain. As an Editor I am grateful for anybody who is willing to do review. It is getting increasingly difficult to find reviewer. Reviewers are not paid and have little benefits and I feel that sloppy uncritical reviews are far more common than overzealous hypercriticism.

I think open review disclosing the names of reviewer and authors is fair. If you feel that somebody is prejudged or is handling your manuscript inappropriate you can always appeal to the editor. Open review allows you to identify conflicts of interest of the reviewers and open review. Open review might reduce idiosyncrasies sometimes observed from reviewers.

Absolutely yes

absolutely positively

lets make eveything open for discussion including

revievwers and revievs

I also think the review should be open as some of the BMC journals do and in this process the reviewer's opinion, queries, suggestions will be open to everyone. It also might help others to learn what to do and what not to. Recently I have seen an Elsevier journal (Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine) publishes the reviewer comment (one reviewer's) along with the manuscript. I found it very interesting.

I think there should be two phases -

phase one, anonymous, brutal and blunt truth, doesn't matter what you say so long as it is constructive and not personal

phase two, say what you will and stick your name to the review

I can't think of a single way of getting the benefits of both without doing both, but I'd be open to hearing how

In my opinion it will be a blind review without authors name and position, bur after reviewing process the author of will read instead of Reviewer 1, or 2or 3 comments the signed Review presenting the scientist who wrote this review

I absolutely agree with the opinion of Marianne (some groups of journal, i. e. World Journals already do this). However, I should like to emphasize a problem: in the case of rejection of a paper, reviewers must remain anonimous or even in this case it is better their name are displayed?

A few days ago I posted a comment about another question, if it could be obvious to mask the authors names during the reviewing process:

As an author, when you publish for the first time, it is indeed possible to stay "anonymous". After that, you make inevitably reference to your previous work and so it is very difficult to mask you ! This is the main reason why I believe it impossible to use an anonymous reviewing process concerning the authors.

Concerning the reviewers, things move !

Have a look to the review system used by "Frontiers in"

( http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem ), in which both authors and reviewers stay "visible". This "pre-publication" phase is followed by an evaluation system ( http://www.frontiersin.org/about/evaluationsystem ).

And also if a paper is to be rejected, not only the editor take the decision but this should be also validated by the chief editor.

The traditional reviewing system assumes that all the qualified reviewers are able to maintain a neutral stand. If the reviewers' comments can make improvement of the article, the visibility of the reviewers is not so important. Recruitment of qualified reviewers is crucial to maintain a high standard of scientic research.

It is time to cancel anonimity or made confidential both authors and reviewers!

In my opinion, rare scientist will perceive criticism about one publication negatively and personally, if it is reasonable. Even in the case when the rejection is not reasonable, only mentally ill person will try to harm the reviewer afterwards. Different opinions existed in any times in the science; most authors will try to publish their data in another journal.

But, it is possible for Reviewer to write a superficial review, knowing that his name will be confidential.

Unfair is that the papers from scientific groups with minor relevance usually are examined later.

It's time to impose time limits for review, such as 2 months. Otherwise scientists work is being unreasonably hindered. If for reviewer it is not possible to read one publication for these 2 months- he may refuse this extra responsibility from the beginning.

Human species is imperfect, that's a truth. So, even involuntarily, peer-reviewing can be imperfect also. And we can't put aside possible economical/political pressures over a certain peer-reviewer that can smear the peer-reviewing process of a certain paper. A scientist assumes a degree of responsability when he accept to be a peer-reviewer. Well then, he must "show his face".

In my opinion, the name of the author of a paper and the name of the reviewers should be known, particularly when the paper is rejected or when important changes are requested by the reviewer or reviewers. In this case, the author of the paper should have the right to defend his/her position and to reply to each of the reviewer comments either to support what the reviewer has said or to explain why he/she is not accepting the suggestion of the reviewer or reviewers.

The author of a paper assumes a greater responsibility for their content and should avoid presenting papers that have no sufficient scientific values for its publication. At the same time, the editors assume also a great responsibility in the selection of the appropriate reviewers and these persons should accept the revision of a paper when he /she knows very well the subject; in other words, when he/she is a real expert in the matter.

Editors should request reviewers to do their job with great responsibility and should ask him/her to present their opinions with sufficient level of details in order to convince the author that is wrong and the reviewers is right in what he/she said or suggesting, particularly in case that the reviewers suggest the rejection of the paper or are proposing important changes in the text. In case that the reviewers are rejecting a paper without giving a good and detailed reason, the editors should not accept his/her position and should find another reviewer or reviewers.

At the same time, the scientific community should stop evaluating the work of a scientist by the number of papers published. It is better that a scientist has only a few excellent or good papers published with an important impact in the scientific community than to have many papers published but without any or small impact in this community.

Finally, it is important to highlight that authors should be aware that papers without a possible important impact in the scientific community should not be presented for publication.

to Jorge Morales Pedraza:

how one young scientist could learn writing a parers without publishing any?

Course of the research contains several stages of development until a part of the study might become relevant. there are studies, that contains too much initial "boring" data to be published in one article with "interesting" data from the same study.

no one knows what study will be important to the scientific community after several years.

how scientist that is interested in his study can start his work without any foundation, if acquisition of the projects/grants/degrees required several publications?

Well, this discussion seems has become interesting one as many researchers are giving their logic, thoughts and opinions. However, though I partly agree with Jorge Morales Pedraza, I think his last words are little bit discouraging for the early stage researchers like me, for example. So, I also feel that Angelika Voronova's question is very logical which should be given much more attention.

Being a researcher or publishing a paper in a high track journal is not "one day work". People learn from their past, their mistakes and from their peers. Perhaps someone who is young and works in a resource limited setup, working very hard with high level of dedication, but as resources are limited, knowledge and experience are at the early stage, s/he might not be able to publish his (/her) work in a high impact journal. But in course of time s/he will learn.

However, I think making the reviewer comments open gives a researcher the opportunity to closely observe the trend and nature of their queries which might be helpful for him (/her) to construct, starting from study design, the research accordingly. So, open peer review offers us learning opportunity. Moreover, I think it is more transparent than the conventional anonymous review process. Here someone may ask "why publishing process should be transparent or why the question of transparency will arise?" Okay, we all believe that the reviewers are honest, they devote their valuable time for reviewing a manuscript and most often receive no financial benefit. So, by keeping the reviewer comment open you are giving a certain degree of respect to the reviewer, you are acknowledging his (/her) contribution. This is also an advantage of open peer review, I think.

Science is the wrong belief in the ignorance of experts, therefore I propose to eliminate the review process completely, especially it was corrupted and hugely biased due to unrestrained inflated egos of the reviewers, enforced loyalties and tribal obedience!

To Angelika and Riaz

I think that young scientists, and I was before a young scientist too, should try not to run and jump steps in the process of getting experience and mature their scientific knowledge. At the beginning young scientists should try to participate with more experienced scientists in the preparation of scientific papers for publication. The reason is the following: Young scientists at the beginning of their professional careers, in general, do not work alone in the implementation of a research activity but under the supervision of a senior scientist. For this reason, young scientists have to do his/her work within a team of scientist and the publication of the work done as a team is the first step in the process of having his/her name in a scientific publication.

With the time, these young scientists obtain more experience and knowledge and start to carry out research activities more independently. This gives him/her the opportunity to publish the outcome of his/her research work in a scientific journal alone of with other colleagues. This is in my opinion the second step.

The third step come with time and when the young scientist, and perhaps at this stage cannot be called a young scientist anymore, have the necessary experience and knowledge to carry out research activity alone or as scientific supervisor of a team. At this stage, scientists have sufficient experience and knowledge to prepare a scientific paper alone, knowing that the content of the paper will probably have an important impact in the scientific community and will be accepted for publication in a scientific journal. This doesn't mean that he/she will gain a scientific prize, but another scientist will show interest in her/his work and this is what matter.

It is important to understand the following: When a person finishes his/her university studies, he/she has a lot of theory in her/his brain, but this doesn't mean that he/she is ready and capable to carry out complex research activities alone. Normally, this is not the case. For this reason, during the beginning of his/her professional work is extremely important to participate in research activities under the supervision of a senior researcher within a team of young and senior researchers. You need to see in practice how a research is carried out, how theory is applied in practice and understand the importance of using the best methodology to carry out the research work, including the type of equipment to be used if necessary, and why is important to the work with patience, precision, listening to other more experience scientists, learning from the mistake of others, among other things.

The history shows very clear that the recognition of the work as a scientific researcher comes after spending years and years of intensive work and not during the beginning of their careers, except in very very rare cases.

Jorge Morales Pedraza

Great! I really liked your explanation and this should be the standard procedure. But there are some "BUTS" here, i.e. often you don't have the opportunity at the beginning of your professional life in the academia to work with research group and in many cases, specially in countries like mine the senior professors are sometime reluctant to disseminate their knowledge among the pupils. But for many reasons I might need some publications, e.g. for promotion, for an PhD opportunity.

So, the intense competition, lack of support and perhaps guidelines often act as the barriers against the standard procedure as you nicely explained.

Riaz

As you know, not all countries have rules to protect and support young scientists and not all senior researchers have the will to support young scientists in their careers, but this is something that cannot be easily changed and for this reason we have to live with it for a certain period of time. One thing is the procedure that should be adopted for the fair treatment of young scientists and another thing is the behavior of the persons in charge of adopting this procedure and to ensure its correct implementation.

Not only intense competition, lack of support or guidelines need to be considered, but government policy in the field of scientific research, academic support, sources for the financing of the scientific research, level of scientific development of the country, pririorities adopted by the government, economic impact of the foreseen outcome of the research to be carried out, among others.

Anonimity should not be there. Individually, I always inform the journal editors to disclose my identity to the authors. The review process should be transparent in which the authors should know the reviewers whether they are really qualified or whether they really deserve to be reviewers for the paper referred to them.

In my opinion, anonimity guarantrees freedom.

I consider the anonymity in the peer review process, accepted by academics and professionals in health sciences field, very important for the journals (credibility, rigurosity, and quality). Double anonymity protects not only the author but the reviewers.

In my opinion, the names of the reviewers should be anonymous to begin with (in the initial stages of the review process) but the reviewers should be informed well in advance that their names will be published on the paper once the entire review process is completed and the manuscript is ready for publication. In that way, the reviewers will also feel more responsible for the work they do and they will be more creative in asking highly pertinent questions to improve the quality of the paper. Also, publishing/revealing the reviewer's names on an accepted paper has the following advantages for the person who reviewed the paper:

1. Recognition via publication of their names is a form of an academic reward for the reviewer's hard work.

2. It encourages the reviewers to work harder in the upcoming assignments because they know that their time and hard work will be appropriately rewarded.

3. The reviewer's name is spread widely among the editors of other journals and among the scientists in the field so that it increases the chances of them being considered as a potential reviewer for future manuscripts -which in turn helps the reviewer to improve his skills.

To Rosa Pascale: Dear Rosa, You said - anonimity guarantees freedom. I have to ask, for who? Working as a reviewer for many years in my discipline I had no problem to recognize authors (groups of authors), when they were active for longer time in my field. It simply goes from observing progress and activity in the science. It is basic duty for researcher, to known what and by who was done in the field. So in this matter one side is rather not anonymous even with hided names by managing editor. They have simply worser position...

To Maria Davila: Dear Maria. You said - double anonymity protects both sides. I have to ask, we have to protect scientists from scientists? These same persons took part in international conferences, where they discuss (sometimes very warmly) about their discoveries face to face, and nobody is injured. When the same persons started in anonymous reviewing process, we have a lot of problems, because game is not only on improving the papers. Hiding face by reviewers is very often related with the lack of responsibility for opinion. Authors of rejected publication have not possibility to defend their positions, they can only submit paper to different editor and game is starting again. According me, scientists have very unique position as public people, so it should be used also for their work.

The experience of Andrrzej Mamcarz is the same I had for about 30 years of scientific activity. Often, for me it is not diffcult to understand the provenience of an anonimous paper or the objections of a referee whose opinion about a specific problem I can know through the partecipation in Meetings or reading current literature. So I think that a free discussion may be more sure than an anonimous contrversy. Another aspect to be considered is the long time that sometimes a revision of a paper takes. In this case, a rejection must be strongly justified just to protect freedom!

In the beginning of my career I was proud to be asked to do a review. A review took me a lot of time. But it was a useful experience and helped me to write better understandable articles. My personal experience with review was mostly positive. The reviews improved my manuscripts. Now I get about 2 invitations a week and I have to decline frequently although it usually takes now about 2 to 3 h to do a sorrow review. However especially from Eastern Europe there are manuscripts which are just a pain. As an Editor I am grateful for anybody who is willing to do review. It is getting increasingly difficult to find reviewer. Reviewers are not paid and have little benefits and I feel that sloppy uncritical reviews are far more common than overzealous hypercriticism.

I think open review disclosing the names of reviewer and authors is fair. If you feel that somebody is prejudged or is handling your manuscript inappropriate you can always appeal to the editor. Open review allows you to identify conflicts of interest of the reviewers and open review. Open review might reduce idiosyncrasies sometimes observed from reviewers.

Dear all,

there is no silver bullet for transparency in reviewing. It seems to be no problem with respect to positive votes but "a fortiori" with respect to negative votes - and this may often taken personally and thus may have negative impact on relation between research groups. On the other hand, unjustified positive votes may also cause damage to the scientific community, For my oppinion outweighing all aspects I would highly appreciate to name reviewers in case of acceptance of a paper - to demonstrate joint responsability for the scientific content! On the other hand in case of rejection I would feel better not to name the reviewers to avoid collateral damages and let them free to find their decision unbiased.

Yours Rainer

This discussion is very important for science and scientists. Double blind peer-review is tradition. It has both advantages and disadvantages. Name, knowledge, and experience of the reviewera are important for me. Are we ready to change this approach? Can we find better solution now? Scientific journals constitute market. Are we able to find enough non-anonymous free reviewers? It seems there is a problem how to find enough number of reviewers now. There may be a problem with: 1) younger scientists as non-anonymous reviewers - if they may fear to write negative peer-reviews?, 2) how to find non-anonymous reviewers for well recognized but controversial scientists or controversial topics?

@Vasile My question concerned issue if we really are able to IMPROVE current solution (=rather anonymous peer-review) using another solution (probably non-anonymous peer-review, I do not know about another). I do not know. But we are scientists, we can discuss and check it. We should be sure if it works before we begin using this solution to change the whole market of scientific journals. Or should we experiment? Then this big business will resist for sure.

I am clinician. We have a lot of specialties - I am only one of them. Taking into consideration my experiences as a reviewer (both manuscripts and scientific projects/grants): I have got at least four proposals of peer-revieewing a week now. I can not do it all (with required high quality or peer-review) due to lack of time (I work full-time in clinical hospital) so I sometimes have to regret. I hope they have better reviewer than me. High quality of peer-review is obligatory for me. I hope reviewers of my manuscripts can provide higher quality approach than mine - there is need to learn from better and better specialists, of course.

In my country we have to publish almost only in IF journals (usually with high charges) since our DSc and full professor degrees depends on it. But I would prefer to publish in open access governmental scientific journals without any charges - to provide equal access for all scientists.

I for one will have no problem in signing my opinion about a paper. I am sick and tired of the cowardice of aggressive statments that you cannot answer

Dear Vera, dear all,

I really understand that you are angry about these colleagues who cannot withstand to produce themselves in an inadequate manner. However, I am nonetheless convinced that most of reviewers will give the most valid reviews - especially with respect to criticism if being protected by anonymity. However in case of acceptance of a paper I recommend to publish reviewers who have to take responsability for their positive vote with respect to the scientific community.

yours Rainer

The main problem with so-called peer review.

As pointed out by David Horrobin in "The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation" (free pdf on web) and also Eysenck & Eysenck 1992 article, the most important question about "peer review" is whether it prevents the most important, paradigm-shifting works from being published. And the answer is yes it does cause such severe censorship, again and again and again.

Far too much evidence of why it is completely unacceptable for reviews to be anonymous can be seen in the words of these charlatans hiding behind their anonymity to suppress this very important paper sent to so-called "Neurotoxicology" journal:

http://www.autismcauses.info/2008/01/peer-reviewers-of-pseudoneurotoxicology.html

And I could show you an equal quantity of disgraceful pseudoexpertise cheap nasty falsehoods in respect of some of my previous publicactions.

AND many other distinguished authors have encountered exactly the same corruption. I repeat, CORRUPTION, which is given free rein with no accountability whatsoever, thanks to being anonymous.

And this corruption is severely damaging science and making large parts of med research into no-go areas for decent honest talented people. . And not surprisingly a huge number of people no longer trust medical “experts”. The blame for this is in largest part with this system of open-to-unaccountable-lying anonymity.

In connection with the above "reviews" I'll just attach here just one of the graphs from the suppressed paper. The evidence is far more than just that graph (not least the extensive system of horribly nasty "expert" lies you can see here: http://tinyurl.com/dentmerc ), but any prepublication of the whole thing here or elsewhere on web would of course prevent it ever being accepted by most indexed journals.

In any scientifically sane society everyone ought to be able to just read my full work anyway. But instead we have a system of extreme, extremely nasty, extremely unfair, pseudo-scientific censorship instead.

In complete agreement. They should be open to discuss and refute.

I have from time to time heard the expression "Don't include that guy",

"Don't invite him to the conference" or "Don't accept his paper for publication".

To me this is extremely un-scientific and has a deleterious effect on progress.

I agree with Yannis, Jonathan, Vasile, Díaz, Marianne, lerardi, Ranganath, Andrzej, Rainer, Vera, Gustavo, and others that reviewers should be recognized for their contribution to the process as well as held accountable to unfair and shoddy reviews. I recently published with the Frontiers open review process that Yannis mentioned and others on this thread advocated for and found it to be a much more pleasant and encouraging experience than the traditional single- and double-blinding. I felt a much greater confidence that I was getting thoughtful, quality reviews given that the identity of the reviewers as well as the editor would appear with the final publication. I fully agree with Andrzej and lerardi that double-blinding is a bit of a joke, that it's not at all difficult to figure out which group submitted the manuscript in question in a relatively narrow field of research. So the authors are then subject to all the biases that prompted the double-blinding to begin with with none of the benefits offered by the open review process.

Finally I will say that I have been told directly by an influential person in the field (after he repeatedly questioned the validity of my results during the public discussion time at the conference) that if I were to submit that same dataset/analysis as a full-length manuscript to any journals he's associated with he would do everything in his power to make sure it does not see the light of day, because it would "give insurance companies an excuse to not cover" the procedure in question. I'm glad this happened at a conference in person instead of behind the protection of an anonymous review process. I know some will say this interaction is an exception to the rule, but the fact we're having this discussion and the numerous other related threads on ResearchGate attest to the magnitude of the problem. I hear those who want to protect young reviewers from retribution, but if there is a clear sense that the reviewers and authors are on the same team with the same goal (i.e. to disseminate well-conceived and well-analyzed research that add to the field) as I experienced in the Frontiers process, the open review can be a great alternative to the traditional peer-review.