Suggestions(1)
Exact(7)
In the Journal of Inflammation, we found that reviewers provided significantly more favourable recommendations under open peer review.
There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.
2 Also, acceptance rates were significantly higher under open peer review than on single-blind peer review (67% vs 50%, see table 3).
However, in the Journal of Inflammation, we found that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance under open peer review as compared with under single-blind peer review.
In the Journal of Inflammation, we analysed 200 reviewer reports for research manuscripts submitted consecutively counting back from the date of change of peer review model (under open peer review), and 200 counting forward (under single-blind peer review).
13 Interestingly, that study found that reports under open peer review were of 5.5% higher quality than unsigned reports, which is consistent with the 5% difference we found between scores for reviewer reports in BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review) and in BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review).
Similar(53)
It originally operated under an open peer review model, but adopted a single-blind peer review policy on 29 January 2010 (table 2).
Biology Direct started as an experiment, perhaps a daring one, on a new system of open peer review, under which the signed reviews and the author responses are published as an integral part of the final version of each article.
Previous studies have compared quality of reviewer reports under open and single-blind peer review across various journals, 1 and analysed open peer review, 2 public peer review, 3 the proportion of authors who suggested reviewers 4 and differences between recommendations by reviewers who were either suggested or excluded by the authors.
… I would encourage authors to embrace open peer review.
Furthermore, open peer review improves constructiveness of peer reviewer comments.
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