Suggestions(2)
Exact(5)
Advocates of more open reviewing, like Mr. Cohen at George Mason argue that other important scholarly values besides quality control — for example, generating discussion, improving works in progress and sharing information rapidly — are given short shrift under the current system.
Add these two points together, and open reviewing starts to look like yet another venue where early-career scientists can demonstrate their knowledge and insight (or embarrass themselves if they get it wrong).
The second concern with open reviewing is the potential legal backlash of scientists being sued by litigious authors who feel aggrieved by a reviewer's published comments.
You are right, it would be great to push to get open reviewing to be recognised as an official part of the REF (and other funding bodies) and acknowledged as a measurable scientific output.
We hope that by being explicit about the intent, the review will seem less like a cloak-and-dagger process, it will make constructive criticism easier for the author to receive and for the reviewer to provide, and it will also help to spread the practice of open reviewing.
Similar(55)
On the other hand, glibenclamide is an oral antidiabetic known to inhibit KATP channels opening (reviewed by Abdelmoneim et al., 2012).
This is potentially the only outright disadvantage to participating as a reviewer in an open review process.
Our Open Review process, where both the reviewers and authors are identified to each other, emphasizes this philosophy [ 1].
For example, one researcher in the biological sciences said that a benefit of open review was that the authors knew whether the reviewers were their competitors.
I appreciate the open review process of F1000Research and that such are published, as reviewers should stop hiding behind anonymity.
Proponents of an open review system emphasized the restoration of a balance between privilege and responsibility of reviewers.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com