Peer review and open peer review are two forms to evaluate scientific articles. However, there are some advantages and disadvantages...
The peer review process is the method chosen by scientists to assess and ensure the quality and validity of publications. There is general consensus that this is an imperfect process and has been much criticized. However, it is the method currently in use, and it has served its purpose up until today. (Grainger DW; 2007)
Both functions are complementary, and authors should remember that the review is carried out by colleagues (peers), who dedicate part of their own time to this altruistic activity. Peer review is intended to minimize errors in the publications, to ensure consistency with the scientific corpus and to prevent fraud. It is considered an honor, though certainly it sometimes can become a burden. (Cartes-Velasquez; 2015)
It is always advisable to facilitate the task of reviewers, avoiding mistakes that could predispose them against the work they are reviewing; so the manuscript must be carefully edited and checked before submission. Editors and reviewers appreciate a manuscript even more when authors have shown genuine interest in their document. (Cartes-Velasquez; 2015)
Despite its advantages, the peer-review system has been widely criticized because it is not efficient and seems to be considerably less effective. Double-blind peer-review has also been criticized for being an “obscure” system, as it lacks the transparency necessary for the development of science. For example, if a reviewer has a conflict with the author of a manuscript, the reviewer may make a negative assessment of the manuscript just for revenge. (Cartes-Velasquez; 2015)
In other cases, some authors create alter egos that they conveniently suggest as reviewers of their manuscripts, always obtaining positive reviews. There is also the possibility that the reviewer performs a poor review process, since anonymity will protect his/her identity from any criticism or sanction. However, we must remember that the objective of double blind peer-review originates precisely with the intention of avoiding conflicts of interest and only considering the quality of the manuscript. (Cartes-Velasquez; 2015)
However, there are other options. To overcome the weaknesses of double-blind peer-review, open peer-review has been proposed.
There is a good study about open peer review (that compares four STEM journals): https://f1000research.com/articles/4-6/v2
Open peer-review solves some above mentioned issues, but many people dislike that the whole world can follow the review process. If a paper receive an impolite referee report - in not professional aspects (sometimes happens) the authors will carry the burden. Nevertheless it should be mentioned that currently the review process is faster in journals and publishers that deal with open peer review.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Composition Studies
- Articles