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 …
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.
-
So maybe fewer junior people will say yes to papers that seem to them to be terrible?
End of conversation
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.