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 …
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.
-
The data seems to suggest if I understand correctly that open reviews, in their sample so this comes with many caveats, are more likely to be accept.
-
Figure 4 seems to show that people are more likely to reveal their identity if they wrote a positive review. I'm curious what the results would be if people had to decide before they wrote their review whether to reveal their identity.pic.twitter.com/tYVLUpSKpU
-
If people are forced to reveal their identities I could see that changing reviewer behavior, but if you select on the people who know going in that they are going to reveal their identity no matter what I could see no effect there.
-
I would imagine powerful people would have no effect, maybe, while junior people would write more positive reviews. It's scary knowing they will know you told them it's shitty, reject it.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.