The case for open peer review
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Masking Author Identity in Peer Review: What Factors Influence Masking Success?
Cho, M. K., Justice, A. C., Winker, M. A., Berlin, J. A., Waeckerle, J. F., Callaham, M. L., Rennie, D., & and the PEER Investigators (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.243 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MOPRD: A multidisciplinary open peer review dataset
Lin, J., Song, J., Zhou, Z., Chen, Y., & Shi, X. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.04972 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“However, the anonymous mechanism might in turn compromise the peer review process [17, 19, 28].”
Background
- Authors
- Morrison, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Morrison, Jill
- ORCID
- Morrison, Jill
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-08-22
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 830-831
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2125801084
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- open peer review, peer review, scholarly publishing, transparency, medical education research
- MeSH terms
- Professional Practice, Peer Review, Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
