According to a study published in the November 9 issue of the online journal PLoS ONE, peer review, crucial for evaluation of scientific work, could be much more effective if it were not anonymous.
Leading author Jeff Leek of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and his team designed a theoretical model for the peer review system in addition to an online game used for testing the model, and to provide further insight into the social dynamics involved.
The outcome of the model and game demonstrated that reviewers are “rewarded” for good reviews, meaning that their submission was more likely to be accepted in an open (non-anonymous) review than in traditionally closed reviews. The authors also discovered that both reviewers and authors are more likely to cooperate under open reviews, and that cooperative peer reviewing behavior, including open reviews, result in increased review accuracy.
The authors explain: “new forms of communication have opened the door for changes to the scientific peer review process. Our theoretical and experimental model system for peer review makes it possible to evaluate potential changes to the system”.
According to the authors, overall, optimum reviewer activity is not promoted under the current closed peer review system.
Written by: Petra Rattue