A Suggestion toward Open Peer Reviewing

Reversing the role of anonymity could possibly better the peer review process. The reviewer doesn’t know who the authors are but the authors know who the reviewers are. The reviewer is not sure whose paper is being reviewed, but, whoever the authors are, they are going to know the reviewer’s identity, when the reviewer’s decision is conveyed. Naturally, the reviewer, whether a novice or expert, has to turn in a best review. For the novice, their growing scholarship and reputation in the eyes of the authors who could be experts in the field is at stake. On the other hand, once the review is done good, that too coming from an authority in that field, puts the author in a self-appraising position. The author realizes how his/her work is viewed by the peers of his/her field of research. This certainly makes him/her more directed and sincere in future efforts.

By protecting the author(s) identity, we effectively wipe off any unfair bias on the part of the reviewer.

After reading about a recent instance of apparent lack of mechanism to verify whether peer review is going on or not, I have a thought.

Journals can publish the respective peer reviews (and author replies, when necessary) along with the accepted papers in each issue.

Once this tradition can be established, the anonymous peer review process can get self-streamlined in all aspects in which it is found wanting now. For instance, the peer reviews will invariably be pukka stating clearly why the paper is worth publishing. Doubts about whether the paper went through a rigorous peer review process are automatically resolved. The academic community in general knows how it self-interacts and treats its specimens and specifics. There is a chance for dignity and even chivalry in Science. OK, I am stretching on the last point but the rest of it is possible.

If there is concern about increasing the journal size and printing cost, we can at least start putting these peer review documents online as 'supplemental material' with every paper.

Journal editors could employ such an open peer review with the consent of the reviewer. Some bad reviewers will fall out, which is good for Science. In fact, peer reviewing can be elevated from its thankless dreary-job status to at least a decorative one by getting a copyright transfer form signed by the reviewer.

Middlemen publishing companies, with their vastly improved internet portals storing closed access knowledge, can show us the way towards open access by taking this up, without losing a penny.

Related posts:

1. Your Review is Hereby Summarily Rejected
2. Myths of and Urgency for Open Access Journals
3. Open Access Publishing
4. Publish or Plagiarize, else Perish
5. Nigersaurus, the Open Access Dinosaur