Open peer review is feasible and does not reduce quality of reviews

Arguments in favour of asking reviewers to sign their reviews include increased accountability, fairness, and transparency. Preliminary research suggests that open peer review leads to better quality reviews. Van Rooyen et al (p 23) conducted a randomised controlled trial to examine the feasibility and impact of asking BMJ reviewers to sign their reviews. There were no differences in the quality of reviews between those who were randomised to be identified and those who were not. Most reviewers agreed to be identified, and most of the authors surveyed believed that reviewers should sign their reviews.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial
Susan van Rooyen, Fiona Godlee, Stephen Evans, Nick Black, and Richard Smith
BMJ 1999 318: 23-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ