Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.

E Walsh1, M Rooney, L Appleby

  • 1Institute of Psychiatry, London.

The British Journal of Psychiatry : the Journal of Mental Science
|May 2, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The psoas sheath block for patients requiring hip surgery: a case series.

Anaesthesia reports·2025
Same author

Investigation of the ΔI=1/2 Rule and Test of CP Symmetry through the Measurement of Decay Asymmetry Parameters in Ξ^{-} Decays.

Physical review letters·2024
Same author

Fraction of χ_{c} Decays in Prompt J/ψ Production Measured in pPb Collisions at sqrt[s_{NN}]=8.16  TeV.

Physical review letters·2024
Same author

Observation of D_{s}^{+}→η^{'}μ^{+}ν_{μ}, Precision Test of Lepton Flavor Universality with D_{s}^{+}→η^{(')}l^{+}ν_{l}, and First Measurements of D_{s}^{+}→η^{(')}μ^{+}ν_{μ} Decay Dynamics.

Physical review letters·2024
Same author

Enhanced Production of Λ_{b}^{0} Baryons in High-Multiplicity pp Collisions at sqrt[s]=13  TeV.

Physical review letters·2024
Same author

Determination of the Σ^{+} Timelike Electromagnetic Form Factors.

Physical review letters·2024
Same journal

The pressurised leaky funnel: rethinking recruitment, selection and retention in the UK psychiatry workforce.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Cutting through stigma: psychiatry and neurosurgery working together.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

A fourth pillar for evidence-based medicine: implications for psychiatry - CORRIGENDUM.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Understanding negative perceptions of psychiatrists on social media: lessons from public discourse and professional self-reflection.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Attachment-informed psychopharmacology in psychiatric care.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Acceptability and accuracy of point-of-care monitoring of lithium levels.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
See all related articles

Open peer review is feasible, with signed reviews showing higher quality and courtesy. However, these reviews took longer, suggesting potential drawbacks to implementing this system in scientific publishing.

Area of Science:

  • Scientific publishing
  • Scholarly communication
  • Peer review processes

Background:

  • Traditional anonymous peer review lacks evidence of superiority over open systems.
  • The efficacy of open peer review remains largely unevaluated in practice.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the feasibility of implementing an open peer review system.
  • To compare the characteristics of open versus anonymous peer reviews.

Main Methods:

  • A randomized controlled trial was conducted with reviewers from the British Journal of Psychiatry.
  • Reviewers were surveyed on their willingness to disclose their identity to authors.
  • Manuscripts were allocated to either signed or unsigned review groups for comparison.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • 76% of reviewers agreed to sign their reviews.
  • Signed reviews demonstrated superior quality and a more courteous tone.
  • Reviews with disclosed authorship were more likely to recommend publication.

Conclusions:

  • The study supports the feasibility of open peer review systems.
  • Potential drawbacks, such as increased review time, were identified.
  • Open peer review may enhance review quality and publication recommendations.