02046nas a2200229   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043653002500058653002000083653002800103653002300131653002000154100003300174700002200207245009200229856006800321300001200389490000700401520138300408022002501791       2021                            d  c2021-10-2910aAcademic communities10aMedical science10ascholarly communication10aScholarly journals10aSelf-publishing1 aLeonardo Ferreira Fontenelle1 aThiago Dias Sarti00aAttitudes toward open peer review among stakeholders of a scholar-led journal in Brazil  uhttps://www.scielo.br/j/tinf/a/dtW5qG7CbRV8y9pYTkW7Spz/?lang=en  ae2000720 v333 aAbstract Scholarly journals should consider the attitudes of their communities before adopting any of the seven traits of open peer review. Unfortunately, surveys from the Global North might not apply to the Global South, where double-blind peer review is commonplace even among natural sciences and medicine journals. This paper reports the findings of a survey on attitudes toward open peer review among four stakeholder groups of a scholar-led medical journal in Brazil: society members, journal readers, authors, and reviewers. Compared to a previous survey, which mostly recruited natural sciences researchers from Europe, this survey found similar support for open peer review in general and for most of its traits. One important exception was open identities, which were considered detrimental by most participants, even more in this survey than in the previous one. Interestingly, participants were more dismissive of open identities as a whole than of statements about its specific consequences. Because preprints are increasingly popular but incompatible with double-blind review, future research should examine the effects of transitioning from double-blind to open identities, especially on gender bias. Meanwhile, scholarly journals with double-blind review might prefer to begin by adopting other traits of open review or to make open identities optional at first.  a0103-3786, 2318-0889