A new trend of open an transparent peer reviewing is growing. In one hand, this would encourage reviewers to actively review because this save their intellectual property they add to the articles. In addition review reports will be more serious. On the other hand, being exposed to the Author(s) may lead to some critics. Please add your thoughts.
Raghad Mouhamad
Accountability: Open peer review can increase accountability, as reviewers know their comments will be publicly associated with their names. Quality: The transparency could lead to more thorough and constructive reviews, as reviewers are aware that their feedback will be visible to the public. Recognition: Reviewers can receive recognition for the work they put into the review process, which is often unseen in traditional peer review models. Bias: There’s a risk that reviewers might be less likely to provide honest, critical feedback for fear of retaliation or damaging professional relationships. Time and Effort: The process might require more time and effort from reviewers, as they may feel the need to provide a more detailed critique knowing it will be publicly available. Potential for Abuse: There’s also a risk that comments could be taken out of context or used inappropriately.
Pros:
Cons:
In conclusion, while open and transparent peer review has potential benefits such as improving the quality and accountability of reviews, it also has potential downsides such as introducing bias and requiring more effort from reviewers. It’s a complex issue that requires careful consideration and ongoing research to fully understand its implications. 😊
1 votes
1 thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Epi
- Age Groups
- Children
More Yahia Ahmed Raja'a's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions