Main content



Loading wiki pages...

Wiki Version:
**Show notes** Peer review is typically conducted behind closed doors. There's been a recent push to make open peer review standard, but what's often left out of these conversations are the potential downsides. To illustrate this, Dan and James discuss a recent instance of open peer review that led to considerable online debate. Here's what they cover... - How should we navigate the open review of preprints? - Gate keepers gonna gate keep, but is this better out in the open? - Weaponising openness - Some people don't realise that some data can’t be shared - Should the reviewers of rejected papers follow them to the next journal? - When bad papers that you reject pop up in another journal, unchanged - Does the venue and timing of the open peer review matter? - Signing your reviews - Using publons to track your reviews Links - Brad Love’s blog post: - Niko’s blog post: - Publons: - Dan on twitter: - James on twitter: - Everything Hertz on twitter: - Everything Hertz on Facebook: Music credits: Lee Rosevere --------------------------------- Support us on Patreon and get bonus stuff! - $1 a month or more: Monthly newsletter + Access to behind-the-scenes photos & video via the Patreon app + the the warm feeling you're supporting the show - $5 a month or more: All the stuff you get in the first tier PLUS a bonus mini episode every month (extras + the bits we couldn't include in our regular episodes)
OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.
This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.