A groundbreaking survey of 1,280 CSP collaborators reveals how the scientific community perceives open peer review (OPR), a model that proposes making the identities of authors and reviewers public, as well as the reviews themselves.
The results show a scenario of caution and division: 23.1% support the complete disclosure of identities, while 24.2% oppose it. The majority preferred intermediate responses, which speaks volumes about the current state of science.
The main concern raised was prior knowledge between authors and reviewers, cited by 52.7% of respondents, followed by concerns about conflicts of interest and professional constraints.
The authors emphasize that the community recognizes the transparency gains that OPR can bring, but clarify that the guidelines need to be clear, that editorial mediation must be active, and that effective protection for those involved must be guaranteed. Read the full article at the link in the bio.
📷 Davide Bonazzi/Salzmanart