ArticlePloS one2017
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by early-career researchers in the peer review of manuscripts.eLife · 2019Pooled it
- Behavior characteristics of peer reviewers in medical journals: a survey from China.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Does the disconnect between the peer-reviewed label and reality explain the peer review crisis, and can open peer review or preprints resolve it? A narrative review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Evolving target: A 16-year progressive framework for shifting the rubric of scientific publishing toward transparency, artificial intelligence, and the Economic Impact Factor for impact that matters.World journal of stem cells · 2025Article
- Article
- Monitoring Open Science as transformative change: Towards a systemic framework.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Preprint Peer Review Enhances Undergraduate Biology Students' Disciplinary Literacy and Sense of Belonging in STEM.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2023Article
- Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?International orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Research funders should be more transparent: a plea for open applications.Royal Society open science · 2022Review
- Removing anonymity protection and utilization review decisions: a real-world case under a single-payer health system.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Open Data Practices among Users of Primary Biodiversity Data.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Comprehensive examination of the peer review process in academic medicine: Towards reaching unbiased decisions - Editorial.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Behavioral Reluctance in Adopting Open Access Publishing: Insights From a Goal-Directed Perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Pandemic publication: correction and erratum in COVID-19 publications.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists.PloS one · 2021Article
- Editors between Support and Control by the Digital Infrastructure - Tracing the Peer Review Process with Data from an Editorial Management System.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR's prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a "one-size fits all" solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.