Groves T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ 2010;341:c6424
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6424)
The author (deputy editor at the BMJ) argues that telling authors who has reviewed their paper has helped to make the process fairer. Open peer review at the BMJ currently means that all reviewers sign their reports, declare their competing interests, and desist from making additional covert comments to the editors. Most BMJ authors and reviewers seem happy with this approach. Perhaps open peer review has succeeded at the BMJ because it is made clear that editors, not reviewers, decide whether to accept aor reject submissions. In his reply(doi:10.1136/bmj.c6425), Karim Khan is concerned that open peer review could stop reviewers from being completely frank.
(doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6424)
The author (deputy editor at the BMJ) argues that telling authors who has reviewed their paper has helped to make the process fairer. Open peer review at the BMJ currently means that all reviewers sign their reports, declare their competing interests, and desist from making additional covert comments to the editors. Most BMJ authors and reviewers seem happy with this approach. Perhaps open peer review has succeeded at the BMJ because it is made clear that editors, not reviewers, decide whether to accept aor reject submissions. In his reply(doi:10.1136/bmj.c6425), Karim Khan is concerned that open peer review could stop reviewers from being completely frank.
Comments