• Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

The Role of the Anonymous Voice in Post-Publication Peer Review Versus Traditional Peer Review

Read this article at

      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.


      Traditional peer review (TPR) has several limitations and weaknesses. Post-publication peer review is one practical way to repair the ills of TPR and reinforce it. A literature that is marked by errors is unhealthy and should, if given the opportunity, be corrected or further improved. The anonymous voice is one source of critique and differs from the blind peer review in TPR in which the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors and/or vice versa, but the identity is known to the editor. If unregulated, the anonymous voice can pose a threat to established editorial norms in TPR, to one of the most important criteria of science publishing, i.e., transparency, and to worthwhile discussion. Yet, if the anonymous voice is not heard, then a vast and potentially valuable pool of untapped opinions may be lost, opinions that may provide valuable solutions to improving TPR.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      [1 ] retired, Japan
      [2 ] University of Debrecen, Research Institute of Nyíregyháza, Hungary
      KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry
      Hungarian Communication Studies Association
      01 December 2015
      : 3
      : 2
      : 90-94
      024ba549a9a24f918a1a5c5267c17c99 10.17646/KOME.2015.27

      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit

      Communication. Mass media
      Philology. Linguistics
      Language and Literature


      Comment on this article