Originally posted on opiniomics:
I got into a really long, and often interesting, conversation on Twitter a few days ago about the merits, or not, of open peer review. 140 characters is a bit limiting, so I am putting my arguments here.
My regular readers know that I am a big supporter of open peer review, and I have signed grant and manuscript reviews for about 2 years now – crucially, I sign them whether they are positive or negative. However, what I really want to do is change the way we see peer review – in my opinion, we should see it as a supportive and collaborative process by which a group of independent scientists assess the quality of a body of research, suggest ways in which it might be improved and decide whether it is ready for publication. Some of this is encapsulated in my reviewer’s oath. Peer review doesn’t have…
View original 1,140 more words