01657nas a2200241   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043653003000058653001600088653001500104100002200119700002300141700002600164700001800190700002300208245009600231856005500327300000800382490000700390520100400397022001401401       2019                            d  c2019-01-1810aInterdisciplinary studies10apeer review10aPublishing1 aGiangiacomo Bravo1 aFrancisco Grimaldo1 aEmilia López-Iñesta1 aBahar Mehmani1 aFlaminio Squazzoni00aThe effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals  uhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08250-2  a3220 v103 aTo increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals are publishing peer review reports. But it is unclear how this practice affects the peer review process. Here, we examine the effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals involved in a pilot study at Elsevier. By considering 9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews from 2010 to 2017, we measured changes both before and during the pilot and found that publishing reports did not significantly compromise referees’ willingness to review, recommendations, or turn-around times. Younger and non-academic scholars were more willing to accept to review and provided more positive and objective recommendations. Male referees tended to write more constructive reports during the pilot. Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report. These findings suggest that open peer review does not compromise the process, at least when referees are able to protect their anonymity.  a2041-1723