01988nas a2200205   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002260001500043100001800058700001400076700002300090700001800113700001900131245017500150856004500325300001200370490000700382520137900389022001401768       2020                            d  c2020-07-051 aMike Thelwall1 aLiz Allen1 aEleanor-Rose Papas1 aZena Nyakoojo1 aVerena Weigert00aDoes the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model  uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678  a809-8200 v473 aAs part of moves towards open knowledge practices, making peer review open is cited as a way to enable fuller scrutiny and transparency of assessments around research. There are now many flavours of open peer review in use across scholarly publishing, including where reviews are fully attributable and the reviewer is named. This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous (named) peer review – and used in the post-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform F1000Research. First, is there evidence of potential bias where a reviewer based in a specific country assesses the work of an author also based in the same country? Second, are reviewers influenced by being able to see the comments and know the origins of a previous reviewer? Based on over 4 years of open peer review data, we found some weak evidence that being based in the same country as an author may influence a reviewer’s decision, while there was insufficient evidence to conclude that being able to read an existing published review prior to submitting a review encourages conformity. Thus, while immediate publishing of peer review reports appears to be unproblematic, caution may be needed when selecting same-country reviewers in open systems if other studies confirm these results.  a0165-5515