Is open peer review the fairest system? No
Abstract
Trish Groves (doi:10.1136/bmj.c6424) argues that telling authors who has reviewed their paper has helped to make the process fairer, but Karim Khan is concerned that it stops reviewers from being completely frank
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The limitations to our understanding of peer review
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
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].”
BackgroundErvens, B., Carslaw, K. S., Koop, T., & Pöschl, U. (2025) · EGUsphere · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-419 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Khan, K.
- Corresponding author
- Khan, K.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2010-11-16
- Volume
- 341
- Issue
- nov16 2
- Pages
- c6425-c6425
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2034283884
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 37.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BMJ (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
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- open peer review, peer review fairness, reviewer anonymity, publication ethics
- MeSH terms
- Confidentiality, Periodicals as Topic, 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
