Peer review and secrecy in the "Information Age"

The subject of peer review has come under increased scrutiny partially due to high profile cases of fraud and other misinformation appearing in academic journals. At the same time, new publishing technologies have made it possible to experiment with new forms of peer review, while the “Open Archives Initiative” has the potential to allow authors to bypass the traditional peer review process entirely. In this paper, I examine some rationales given for the need for secrecy in peer review, especially as it relates to the perceived need for anonymity on the part of reviewers and sometimes even authors. I will propose a basic framework for secrecy and transparency as it relates to the peer review process of academic journals.

[1]  Jennifer Couzin,et al.  ... And How the Problems Eluded Peer Reviewers and Editors , 2006, Science.

[2]  Chan Ky,et al.  Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial , 2001 .

[3]  Undermining peer review , 2001 .

[4]  Daniel Kennefick,et al.  Einstein Versus the Physical Review , 2005 .

[5]  David E. Stout,et al.  Reasons Research Papers Are Rejected at Accounting Education Journals , 2006 .

[6]  Martin Loosemore,et al.  Gate-keepers or judges: peer reviews in construction management , 1999 .

[7]  J. Olden,et al.  Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? , 2006 .

[8]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 2 , 1998 .

[9]  Martin Enserink,et al.  Peer Review and Quality: A Dubious Connection? , 2001, Science.

[10]  R Smith,et al.  Peer review: reform or revolution? , 1997, BMJ.

[11]  Trish Groves How can we get the best out of peer review , 2006 .

[12]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.

[13]  Kristin Yiotis,et al.  The Open Access Initiative: A New Paradigm for Scholarly Communications , 2005 .

[14]  Finding important findings , 2003 .

[15]  D. Paustenbach Scientific Method Questioned , 2006, International journal of occupational and environmental health.

[16]  Peer review and professionalism at the Archives of Internal Medicine. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[17]  Emma Marris,et al.  Should journals police scientific fraud? , 2006, Nature.

[18]  Peer Review: Time for a Change? , 2006 .

[19]  J. Youngner The scientific misconduct process: a scientist's view from the inside. , 1998, JAMA.

[20]  Elihu D Richter,et al.  Conflicts of interest and scientific integrity. , 2005, International journal of occupational and environmental health.

[21]  Kevin K. Kumashiro,et al.  Thinking Collaboratively about the Peer-Review Process for Journal- Article Publication , 2005 .

[22]  Sabah Alkass,et al.  Rigour in research and peer-review: a reply , 1998 .

[23]  J. Levine Intellectual History as History , 2005 .

[24]  C. Deangelis,et al.  Thanking Authors, Peer Reviewers, and Readers—Constancy in a Time of Change , 2000 .

[25]  D. Normile,et al.  Cloning Researcher Says Work Is Flawed but Claims Results Stand , 2005, Science.

[26]  Glenn Regehr,et al.  To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer , 2006, Medical education.

[27]  John R. Rossiter,et al.  Qualifying the importance of findings , 2003 .

[28]  Juan Miguel Campanario,et al.  Peer Review for Journals as it Stands Today—Part 1 , 1998 .

[29]  M. Chin,et al.  How to be an outstanding reviewer for the Journal of General Internal Medicine … and other journals , 2006, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[30]  Theodora Bloom Online frontiers of the peer-reviewed literature , 2006 .

[31]  Harold L. Davis Peer review on trial , 1975 .

[32]  Toni Scarpa Peer Review at NIH , 2006, Science.

[33]  C. Gross,et al.  Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. , 2006, JAMA.

[34]  Peter Fenn Rigour in research and peer review , 1997 .

[35]  Fraud and Deception in Publication of Scientific Research: Is There a Solution? HERA's Policy Change , 2006 .

[36]  Tinker Ready Plagiarize or perish? , 2006, Nature Medicine.

[37]  Roy Schwartzman The Forum: Peer Review as the Enforcement of Disciplinary Orthodoxy , 1997 .

[38]  J. Morrison,et al.  The case for open peer review , 2006, Medical education.

[39]  M. Albanese Three blind mice—might make good reviewers , 2006, Medical education.

[40]  J. Armstrong Publication of Research on Controversial Topics: The Early Acceptance Procedure , 1996 .

[41]  Jim Giles Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process , 2006, Nature.

[42]  James Hartley,et al.  Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines , 2006, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[43]  T. Jefferson Peer review and publishing: it's time to move the agenda on Elisabeth Wager , 2005, The Lancet.

[44]  Mark A. Fine Reflections on enhancing accountability in the peer-review process. , 1996 .

[45]  L. Grivell,et al.  Through a glass darkly , 2006, EMBO reports.

[46]  Mark Ware,et al.  Online submission and peer‐review systems , 2005, Learn. Publ..

[47]  Debra L. Shapiro,et al.  PEER REVIEW IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES: PREVALENCE AND EFFECTS OF REVIEWER HOSTILITY, BIAS, AND DISSENSUS , 2006 .

[48]  J. Sieber How can we research peer review , 2006 .

[49]  Blinding reviewers to authors' identity does not improve quality , 1997 .