I see that Nature (a Springer journal) is opening up the mysteries of the peer-review process. See this report in the THE. About time, many say. Hang on a bit, others respond.
Dr Ritu Dhand, vice-president at Nature Journals, told the THE that it was “pretty edgy for us,” adding that the “anxiety [about including peer review reports] came mainly from referees” whose comments on papers could now be made public, although there will be an option of remaining anonymous. Dhand added: “We are definitely going towards an era of more transparency ...”.
The THE notes that Springer is the latest publisher to allow readers to see discussions between authors and reviewers, following the Swiss-based group MDPI and the Public Library of Science (Plos), which changed last year. The move came after dozens of journal editors signed an open letter in February 2018 calling for peer review reports to be made public. Nature Communications, has published peer review reports since 2016.
I wonder how this will go down with social science journals. The risk must be that it will further mystify an already murky process. On balance, however, I'm in favour. Back when it often felt that I was a full-time editor, I regularly thought that some reviews were much more valuable than the papers, and remember thinking (perhaps not aloud) that a Journal of Referee Reports might just catch on.
Respond