I'd be wary of disclosing the identity of reviewers. There's a risk that they won't want to be seen as supporting unconventional research, thereby establishing a false consensus. However I do think that publishing the author-reviewer correspondence as well as the research itself might be a good idea.
I'm surprised that the difference in quality is so low (5% better using the alternative method), but I haven't read the original report yet.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-peer-review-better-quality-than-traditional-process
I'm proud to be a non-mainstream scientist by education and philosophy.
ReplyDeleteJordan Henderson - Excellent article.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus We definitely need people working on non-mainstream ideas... just not me. :)
ReplyDeleteSo I glanced at the paper, and the open peer review journal also publishes the referee reports and author correspondence. Looks like it doesn't make that much difference to the quality of the reports. Still, ideologically I think it's a good idea, so that the general public will know just how carefully (or not) the referees are being.
ReplyDeleteIt could also be there's a difference in review standards from subject to subject; this study only looks at biology and medicine.