Peer review: the benefits of leaving it open

In this podcast, we talk to Professor Ian Cree, section editor for BMC Cancer, about open peer review and recognition for those participating in it.

Not all reviewers hide behind a cloak of anonymity. If given the chance, many choose to be highly critical and not always kind. With open peer review, reviewers tend to be more respectful and constructive when passing judgement which helps the overall situation.

Professor Cree believes that it’s important to treat authors with respect as you would if they were presenting data in front of you at a scientific meeting. Constructive criticism encourages authors to take on board productive comments and improve their work accordingly.

Although the counter-argument suggests that you can’t say what you’d really like to say in an open peer review, reviewers do tend to be more rigorous with their work if they know that their name will be associated with it.

Listen to Professor Ian Cree talk about the benefits of open peer review here:

View the latest posts on the BioMed Central blog homepage

Comments

By commenting, you’re agreeing to follow our community guidelines.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *