I am totally in support of this direction as it will enhance transparency. Also, when reviewers know their comments will be published, they will feel more obligations to perform quality reviews. A new article has been recently published in Nature and it is a very interesting read.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06032-w

I am totally in support of this direction as it will enhance transparency. Also, when reviewers know their comments will be published, they will feel more obligations to perform quality reviews. A new article has been recently published in Nature and it is a very interesting read.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06032-w

When I first encountered open peer review, I was surprised by the open spirit encouraged, the helpfulness of the comments and the spirit with which they were incorporated. The paper in question was much improved through the peer review. Transparency is increased, and reviewers are forced to write serious reports demonstrating that they have indeed read and carefully considered the papers. (You might be surprised by the trivial nature of many reports – a fabricated example: "This is the best paper I've received, it should be accepted." for a mediocre paper failing to even clarify the researchers' aims or major results. What is an editor-in-chief to do? Add weeks to the review process by requesting another review or rely on the other report and his o her own judgement?)

There is a tradition of open peer review within astronomy, and it seems to work well. During my time as editor-in-chief, I encountered just one instance of reviewing of this kind (and as it was for an astronomy paper, the authors and reviewers were probably already familiar with the benefits of an open review). I found the entire procedure extremely positive, and therefore decided to run the idea past colleagues at physics conferences to determine how they felt about it. Sadly, many said that they would not be prepared to contribute open reviews, and, more specifically that they would cease to review for the journal if such a procedure were to be introduced. I was taken aback, so I would recommend that any change in this direction should be carefully thought through – the blind peer review process protects reviewers and makes it possible for them to criticise the work of colleagues (who have often become friends over the years) without the need to worry about reprisals of the eventual impact on their relationship with their colleagues. This is worth preserving.

Thus, I would argue that there are pros and cons. An increased struggle to find respectable reviewers is a consideration – it is likely that few members of the research community are aware that the correspondence taking place behind the scenes in conjunction with the review of a paper can run into several hundred emails. (This starts with an exchange over the submission, the permissions, copyright, etc., and might continue with discussion over the plagiarism check. Suppose that eleven potential reviewers have to be approached – they will need to be invited, and probably reminded to respond; the reviewers may or may not respond, so a delay must be allowed for a potential response, then a further reminder might be sent. If a researcher agrees to review, deadlines often need to be extended, and some reports will need to be cancelled as, despite the best will in the world, the editor can no longer wait for the review. The correspondence soon mounts up.) Even when automated to the greatest extent possible, this is a costly process for publishing houses with editorial staff spending much of their days deciding whether to try the next person on the list, request a further list of potential reviewers from the Board, or resort to using the database suggestions, thereby risking useless reviews of the kind exemplified above by my fictional (but realistic) review. (And note that staff bonuses can be tied to a rapid review, which might encourage tolerance for vacuous reports over a longer review period.) If open review increases the need for correspondence, the job of the publishing houses will increase, and the review time is likely to go up. Is the research community prepared to pay these costs?

Before concluding, I would also like to mention that I gave some consideration to the possibility of an open discourse from the research community that could be presented in comments associated with papers. Again, many researchers said that they would never comment and would not wish to respond to comments. Nevertheless, a quick look at "The Conversation", for instance, demonstrates that it is possible to engage in an interesting dialogue this way (albeit in connection with a more popular account in this instance). It only really works if the authors are prepared to become engaged. Comments need to be monitored to eliminate offensive remarks, which is a cost to someone.

Having said this, my personal preference would be for an open review process encouraging dialogue. If all members of the research community are prepared to take on the criticism of those we consider our friends in the interest of improving the scientific exchange, then this is the way to go.

However those who prefer to retain their anonymity as reviewers and as authors should be able to select journals offering a single- or double-blind peer review, as appropriate. Maximising choice seems like a healthy way forward.

Thanks very much @Suzy Lidstrom. Your comments are deep and really insightful. From them I have gathered that it may be that peer reviewers may be a bit skeptical about open peer review for fear of their reviews being chastised by others in the discipline. The truth is, no matter what we do as authors and even reviewers, we may never be able to fully please the readership. Someone will always feel that something in the work should have been done differently or better. Your comment is well appreciated, timely and I must say thought provoking. Thank you.

Thank you for including that link Abdelrahman Ibrahim Abushouk it was an interesting read. I note that the article talks of improving openness in the review process, which has to be a good thing, but also discusses the potential to maintain reviewers' anonymity. Retaining this option seems to me to be a wise decision as it might avoid some of the difficulties associated with an open peer review (mentioned in my response). The suggestions made in the Nature publication to which you referred are excellent, however I would suggest that, while opening up peer review is an ideal to strive for, retaining anonymity for the reviewers of published reviews could provide an alternative that many less popular publications find more realistic to implement.

I think this practice is good as it forces reviewers to take this more seriously, knowing that whatever they say will be publicly published