Thanks for being so active on the site – and feel free to follow up on email if you’d like to suggest an area of discussion as well.

For the peer review, I think you’re right about the advantage of double blind for young researchers who wouldn’t be “decipherable” to most of the keenest eyes in the field. It is definitely better than the current system that just screams for biases.

I guess this blog posting was (and is still) trying to advocate for the most open system possible, one where science becomes a little more pure and gets disputed on an experimental level not a political level. Hiding under the cover of anonymity allows politics to factor in much more easily. The open reviews of EMBO (see last week’s quick hits ) are anonymous, but at least they are open about “how” a paper gets in…

For journals and their need to cajole reviewers – I think the only way the system of open peer review would work is if all journals starting moving in that direction, which is a pipe dream for certain. I think medical scientists need to commit themselves to the idea of openness (look at computer science or even fruit fly biologists for leaders in sharing data/ideas) – we’re obsessed with competition in our field and not with getting information that we have confidence in out there for people to build from. I think the latter will lead to faster, better solutions and a lot less wasted time.

As for remuneration… I’m not a fan. It would encourage people to take on peer review as a means of income, not as a service to the field. I’d doubt (but I don’t know) that there are many professors who would support paid peer reviews (and it would probably get passed back to the submission costs, which would put an even greater strain on grants). It would probably be attractive to younger people, I’ll concede that – but I don’t think that would actually improve the level of peer review which is the task at hand. I have a feeling that some (dare I say unethical) scientists would take it on simply for the cash… this is a really really dangerous paradigm.

As a postdoc, I get to review quite a few manuscripts (both with my supervisor and on my own)and recently I have come across manuscripts with the author page removed to maintain confidentiality. If done properly, this could be a boon to new researchers who might be able to compete with better known peers on a more level playing field.

However, making the reviewers names available might scare off potential reviewers (journal editors are always cajoling ppl to do reviews to begin with). Another option might be to offer remuneratyion to reviewers who wish to be identified, might be a strong incentive for postdocs and sessionals to take on more reviewing duties.
Just a few thoughts…. and pls discuss what you think.

I suppose I’m a bit of a pessimist…does anyone actually think that editors and reviewers in general would agree to transparency and publishing reviews? It’s scary having to be credible….do the editors and reviewers have the guts to do it??