Nature’s decision to publish peer review reports alongside journal papers indicates that there is a growing consensus that peer review should be open, experts agreed.
Earlier this month, the prestigious Springer Nature title announced that it would offer authors the option of having anonymous referee reports published, alongside their own responses and rebuttals, once a manuscript is ready. Reviewers can choose to be named if they wish.
It is the latest publisher to allow readers to see discussions between authors and reviewers, following the Swiss-based group MDPI and the Public Library of Science (Plos) stable of titles, which made the switch last year. The move came after dozens of journal editors signed an open letter, published in February 2018, calling for peer review reports to be made public.
However, Ritu Dhand, vice-president at Nature Journals, told Times Higher Education that it was “pretty unusual for a journal of Nature’s calibre” to make the switch, despite the practice’s growing popularity elsewhere.
“It is pretty edgy for us,” said Dr Dhand, who added that the “anxiety [about including peer review reports] came mainly from referees” whose comments on papers would now be made public, albeit with reviewers retaining the option of remaining anonymous. “It raises the bar if people can see what they have written,” she added.
Publishing the peer review comments would demystify the roles played by editors, reviewers and authors in the publication process, Dr Dhand added. “One of the big criticisms of peer review is that it is a black box – people don’t see the types of comments that are being made,” she said. “We are definitely going towards an era of more transparency – of which I am a huge advocate – which is really what this trial is all about,” said Dr Dhand, who added that the trial follows a similar move by Nature Communications, which has published peer review reports since 2016.
Despite concerns that reviewers who make critical comments might face a backlash if they are named, 80 per cent of Nature’s papers now have at least one referee named, Dr Dhand said.
The inclusion of peer review reports might result in named reviewers facing serious public attacks, some have argued, leading them to soften criticism for fear of being seen as too harsh.
Authors could also be resistant to the inclusion of peer review reports, explained Matt Hodgkinson, who oversees research integrity at Hindawi, an open access publisher.
“From an author’s perspective, they may feel that the peer review process gives them the chance to iron out any wrinkles in their work, but now you are just showing the wrinkles again,” said Mr Hodgkinson, who added that some mistakes spotted by referees, such as privacy breaches, could be “highly embarrassing” for authors if published.
“That kind of thinking is becoming less prevalent with the advent of preprints, where these errors are often now caught,” added Mr Hodgkinson.
Asked if this kind of peer review would become the norm, Mr Hodgkinson said many journals might be held back by technology – in particular, the need to change journal submission infrastructure. “But the consensus is clearly forming that there is some value in posting these reports,” he said.
后记
Print headline: Nature joins see-through peer review crew
