Abstract
For more than 50 years peer review has guided the decision-making process of editors regarding the merit of publishing scientific work. Peer reviews can be influenced by knowledge of the authors’ identities as well as anonymity of the referee. The value of the current peer review system apparently offsets areas of dissatisfaction that include: (a) reviewer bias as a result of knowing author identity, (b) unequal valuation of reviewer versus author anonymity, (c) resource expense for authors, reviewers, editors, and journals, and (d) inhibition of free communication. This chapter discusses the merits of hiding reviewer and author identity in the peer review process as well as the increasing importance of post publication review.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Dermatoethics |
| Subtitle of host publication | Contemporary Ethics and Professionalism in Dermatology |
| Publisher | Springer Verlag |
| Pages | 221-225 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| ISBN (Electronic) | 9781447121916 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781447121909 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2012 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012.
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Hiding behind the curtain: Anonomyous versus open peer review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS