TY - JOUR
AU - Elizabeth Walsh
AU - Maeve Rooney
AU - Louis Appleby
AU - Greg Wilkinson
AB - Background
               Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system.
            
            
               Aims
               To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system.
            
            
               Method
               Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review.
            
            
               Results
               A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication.
            
            
               Conclusions
               This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.
BT - The British Journal of Psychiatry
DA - 2018-01-02
DO - 10.1192/bjp.176.1.47
IS - 1
LA - en
N2 - Background
               Most scientific journals practise anonymous peer review. There is no evidence, however, that this is any better than an open system.
            
            
               Aims
               To evaluate the feasibility of an open peer review system.
            
            
               Method
               Reviewers for the British Journal of Psychiatry were asked whether they would agree to have their name revealed to the authors whose papers they review; 408 manuscripts assigned to reviewers who agreed were randomised to signed or unsigned groups. We measured review quality, tone, recommendation for publication and time taken to complete each review.
            
            
               Results
               A total of 245 reviewers (76%) agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews. Reviewers who signed were more likely to recommend publication.
            
            
               Conclusions
               This study supports the feasibility of an open peer review system and identifies such a system's potential drawbacks.
PY - 2018
SP - 47
EP - 51
ST - Open peer review
T2 - The British Journal of Psychiatry
TI - Open peer review: A randomised controlled trial
UR - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/open-peer-review-a-randomised-controlled-trial/1F81447FC67B3BAFDCCCCE82B6C7A187
VL - 176
Y2 - 2022-02-17
SN - 0007-1250, 1472-1465
ER -