![]() Instead of revealing reviewers’ identity, masking authors’ identity in a double-anonymized system has been offered as a solution - even though the effectiveness of double-anonymized practice has been questioned. Bias in many forms is inherent in the peer review process (for example, gender bias in selecting reviewers and their evaluation outcomes ), a problem that is exacerbated by the fact that our reviewer pools are far too narrow to ensure that research is assessed fairly and with full consideration for different perspectives. The key issues can be summarized as follows: Research suggests that signed and published peer reviews are at least as good as blinded models, and other research has found improvements in specific areas like constructive feedback, comments on methods, length of review, and substantiating evidence to support the comments ( see here for an example ).Īt this point, there are probably a higher number of people making the case that the risks of open identities would outweigh the benefits. Open identities could improve the quality of reviews by encouraging reviewers to be more thorough in their assessments. ![]() Signed and published peer review offers reviewers an opportunity to claim credit for their work and is a step towards elevating peer review to a bona fide academic activity deserving of recognition and credit. Peer review is challenging, time consuming and all too often, unacknowledged. When the identity of all participants is transparent, any potential competing interests are more readily apparent and everyone is publicly accountable for their actions. Proponents of open identities (i.e., signed) peer review make the case that this form of transparency is an important component of open review: Here, we’re first going to provide a quick recap of the pros and cons of open identities before diving into what we can learn from the experience of publishers who’ve implemented them. There is, however, far more divergence on the issue of whether reviewers should reveal their identities. For example, a survey published in PLOS ONE in 2017 found high levels of support for most aspects of open review among the majority of respondents. The call for increased transparency has been gathering pace over the past few years with increased funder interest, and there is growing support for publishing reviews and making them easily citable by providing DOIs. Open peer review has been growing steadily but its implementations take many different forms (in fact, Ross-Hellauer has catalogued 122 definitions ). In a week devoted to exploring the role of personal and social identity in peer review, we’re going to take a deeper dive into the perennial question of open identities in peer review. ![]() For additional information on shipping and returns, please see our “shipping & returns” page.Authors’ note: This post is co-authored with PLOS’s Chief Scientific Officer, Véronique Kiermer. will pay the freight charges to return the repaired or replaced product(s). ![]() The purchaser is responsible for the freight charges associated with returning the defective products to us. Warranty covers the repair or replacement of the defective products only. An extremely aggressive, high tack adhesive comes standard on every single item.Īll of our decals, labels, and stickers are warranted against manufacturing and material defects and workmanship for a period of 3 (three) months from the date of your invoice. Our decals, labels, and stickers are manufactured to withstand years of being exposed to the outdoor elements. We expect that you'll be very pleased with your purchase. stands behind the quality of its decals, labels, and stickers. In addition, you can return any unused portion of your order within 30 days of the invoice date and we will issue a refund for the items you returned. Have some peace of mind when ordering from If for any reason you are not 100% satisfied with your order, simply return it within 30 days of the invoice date for a full refund. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |