01300nas a2200145   4500000000100000008004100001260001500042100001700057245006700074856004500141300001400186490000800200520093200208022001401140       2002                            d  c2002-06-051 aFiona Godlee00aMaking Reviewers Visible: Openness, Accountability, and Credit  uhttps://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2762  a2762-27650 v2873 aAnonymity for peer reviewers remains the overwhelming norm within biomedical journals. While acknowledging that open review is not without challenges, this article presents 4 key arguments in its favor: (1) ethical superiority, (2) lack of important adverse effects, (3) feasibility in practice, and (4) potential to balance greater accountability for reviewers with credit for the work they do. Barriers to more widespread use of open review include conservatism within the research community and the fact that openness makes editors publicly responsible for their choice of reviewers and their interpretation of reviewers' comments. Forces for change include the growing use of preprint servers combined with open commentary. I look forward to a time when open commentary and review replace the current, flawed system of closed prepublication peer review and its false reassurances about the reliability of what is published.  a0098-7484