Blog
About

18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.

      The British Journal of Psychiatry

      Reproducibility of Results, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Peer Review, methods, standards, Postal Service, Questionnaires

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system. To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system. Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review. A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication. This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          10789326

          Comments

          Comment on this article