Is open peer review the fairest system? No
BMJ 2010; 341 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6425 (Published 16 November 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c6425- Karim Khan, editor
- 1British Journal of Sports Medicine, London, UK
- karim.khan{at}familymed.ubc.ca
Open peer review makes perfect sense in the ideal world. But it is not an ideal world. As editor of a BMJ Group specialist journal, I am concerned that open review provides more scope for power relationships to favour “the great and the good.”
Anonymity creates a safe place
Open peer review is associated with the risk that an inferior paper written by a senior authority in the field may receive a “soft” or generous review from a junior reviewer who either seeks to curry favour or fears an honest review would lead to payback at some future time.1 2 Van Rooyen and colleagues’ classic randomised controlled trial found a 5% greater positive recommendation among identified reviewers (open) than among anonymous reviewers (closed). Although that difference seems unremarkable, the authors of that study, undertaken at …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £184 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£50 / $60/ €56 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.