To all those who were arguing against open peer review because there is no evidence that open peer review improves review quality: There is evidence that open peer review improves review quality.https://twitter.com/_atanas_/status/1086785382199504896 …
-
-
For instance, this, from the abstract. For details, see the paper.pic.twitter.com/fPoVTb6Y12
-
How did they measure objectivity?
-
If you are not convinced by what is reported in the paper, I think that is an excellent question to address to the authors.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2#author-information …
-
I'm more interested in your claims that people are arguing against open reviews based on quality? What have they been saying?
-
I didn't keep a formal record. The general argument I heard a lot (from memory) is that it will make reviews worse (because if published, people will be reluctant to be honest) and it will be harder to find reviewers.
-
I think this is a legitimate concern. Some of the reviews I've read at F1000Research have been puff pieces. I'm not sure if that's because the review is public or because the manuscript is basically already published.
-
I suspect it could well be the latter.
-
Yes...if your role is as a gatekeeper you're incentivized to keep the gate closed.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Really important findings though: "These findings suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.