cole.editor@researchhub.foundation | Biotech scientist working to help patients with cell-derived therapies | 
Citizen scientist identifying how music affects plant growth |
Creator of Investigate Explore Discover. Video summaries of recently published scientific papers so that they can be understood, put into context, and enjoyed by a broader non-expert audience.

University of Alberta

Biotech Industry Scientist | Creator of Investigate Explore Discover | Boston, MA 

Immunology

Microbiology

Molecular Biology

Oncology

Biotechnology

Materials Chemistry

Cardiology And Cardiovascular Medicine

Physiology

Aging

Surgery

Pharmacology

Biomedical Engineering

Plant Science

Cellular And Molecular Neuroscience

Psychiatry And Mental Health

Clinical Psychology

Genetics

Rehabilitation

Urology

Immunology And Allergy

Information Systems

Complementary And Alternative Medicine

Health Informatics

General Health Professions

Accounting

Peer Review

Position Paper

Cole Delyea Notebook 2

Anonymity in Peer Review

People who say that anonymous peer review is necessary are cowardly. They lack the bravery to fix the broken publishing system by making the whole process more transparent.Scientific progress is built on the backs of previous work. To verify new information, supporting evidence is required as proof. For these claims to be accepted as truth, we rely on a process called peer review. This process has existed for centuries, the most current iteration emerged in the mid-20th century (1).Currently, a committee of expert peers (usually three to four) in a similar field as the work being submitted verifies this information for scientific rigor, novelty, and significance. The panel will provide feedback on the work to improve it to the point that the data is convincing enough for the claims to be supported. Once these comments have been addressed, the written article is published in a scientific journal and considered truth (1).The peer review process is effective, in theory, because it relies on the assumption that the editors and reviewers are capable and willing to give effective feedback. In practice, there are multitudes of papers that go through this process that are fraught with logical errors, inappropriate analysis, improperly powered statistics, backdoor politicking, or downright fraud (2–5). This is compounded by a burnout of reviewers (6–8) who are asked to drive stunning profits for journals (9,10) for little to no compensation. Yet at the end of the day, no one is held accountable for these blunders, and they continue to occur with no real consequence.Anonymity of reviewers is a current staple of the peer review process (though there are now many publishers and journals that are implementing open peer review (11–16)). Reviewer’s commentary is kept anonymous to enable the reviewer to give honest feedback on an article without fear of retribution. This gives a venue for scientists at any stage of their career to voice critical feedback to established scientific groups and be taken seriously. This sounds like a very practical way to perform peer review, but is it truly the most effective way to perform this practice?Even though anonymity has its benefits, it can also be used maliciously to bully and degrade competing labs or theories (17). This enables people to say things that would never be said to someone’s face, akin to online trolling. In some cases, it can have devastating effects on the self-confidence of the submitting scientists, dissuading them from sharing their findings. Editors are supposed to help combat this, but this is rarely seen. Therefore, it can become in someone’s interest to discredit new and competing theories for personal gain. It may be difficult to accept, but ego has no real place in scientific endeavors. Science is about encouraging the pursuit of truth. Ideas become their own entity once they have been uttered and will stand on their own or fail as more evidence is gathered to support or refute them. You can own and get recognition for your ideas, but they are not you. Petty squabbling damages scientific trust and hinders understanding. Those who champion this politicking are too caught up in the academic game of citations and prestige. Making the peer review process completely transparent (not just open (18)) would improve the state of peer review. Transparent means that all people involved (the authors, the reviewers, and the journal editors) in the process are identified. The reviews and comments that people submit are available for all to view, specific areas of expertise (or lack thereof), and conflicts of interest are disclosed. This would provide accountability, allow for external feedback or corrections, and serve as a learning resource for how to perform peer review. This also honors that people, as fallible as they are, are conducting this process. They deserve some grace. Identifying who is making the comments would have several benefits. First off, the reviewers can claim the peer review they have done as scientific work that can be put on their CVs. This is especially helpful for early career scientists who may not have amassed many publications. Secondly, performing helpful, insightful, and thorough peer review can positively affect their reputation as a scientist. For those fearing retribution for giving honest and critical peer review (which is also beneficial when done with tact), document your reasoning. This gives a paper trail to identify any biases that may affect people professionally. It will become clear who is acting in bad faith. The scientific community can then ostracize bullies seeking retribution. Vindictive authors may soon find it difficult to find others willing to review their work, putting their documents in limbo as a direct consequence of their pattern of malicious and retaliatory behaviors. Without quality reviews, the studies will be published with glaring holes in them which will spark public outcry at the lack of rigor. We have already seen an outcry from the public around ChatGPT-generated content making it past the peer review (19). Journal editors and the boards that oversee them are supposed to safeguard against sub-par quality. This is the whole reason why they exist, to curate scientific knowledge and be gate-keepers of quality. However, this is not always the case. Making all processes transparent will also hold journal editors accountable to the community for failing to properly perform their duties that they are getting paid for (unlike the reviewers who are rarely paid for this service).  Something else to keep in mind with the whole peer review process is that everyone, at every stage of their career is learning (though this does not excuse patterns of malicious behavior). Not every peer review is going to be a paragon of objectivity. That is ok. As people progress in their careers, their insights will become sharper, their suggestions more tactful.Disclosing conflicts of interest will also help taper unjust criticisms. By knowing that there are differing interests (because let’s face it, everybody has their own biases (20,21)), it helps put criticisms in context. This allows for corrections or the better choice of peer reviewers. We all have blind spots. Anonymity masks the humanity of reviewers and can bring out the worst through every stage of the process. Removing this blinding will take time and bravery to fully enact, but is necessary to improve the systems that we work with.Be enacting this change it will hold all present in the process accountable for safeguarding and growing the scientific literature. Unmasking reviewers will have many effects. It will identify malicious patterns and hold people accountable for those actions, creating a more constructive scientific atmosphere. It will allow for fair recognition of work (especially for those early in their careers). Furthermore, it will Identify those involved in the process, acknowledging the humans behind the comments. We all have biases and flaws, and we are all continuously learning. It is a part of science. Ultimately, we are all pursuing science to understand more about the natural world and help people. If you think that there is a better way to do something, dare to stand behind your ideas. Create a discussion to improve understanding. Discourse furthers inquiry. Inquiry leads to the development of new ideas. Ideas can be put into action through collaboration. Collaboration enables effective teams to tackle problems, leading to actions that further our knowledge of the physical world. Courage to reveal all parts of the scientific process is the best way to further advancement and make the system better for generations to come.   References:1.            Tumin D, Tobias JD. The peer review process. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1):S52–8. 2.            Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738. 3.            Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028–33. 4.            Oransky I, Marcus A. There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit. The Guardian [Internet]. 2023 Sep 8 [cited 2024 Apr 28]; Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch5.            Van Noorden R. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record. Nature. 624th ed. 2023 Dec 12;479–81. 6.            Flaherty C. The Peer-Review Crisis [Internet]. Faculty Issues. 2022 [cited 2024 Apr 30]. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/13/peer-review-crisis-creates-problems-journals-and-scholars7.            Petrescu M, Krishen AS. The evolving crisis of the peer-review process. J Mark Anal. 2022 Sep 1;10(3):185–6. 8.            Dance A. Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off. Nature. 2024 Feb 13;(614):581–3. 9.            Curcic D. Academic Publishers Statistics [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 28]. Available from: https://wordsrated.com/academic-publishers-statistics/10.         Walter P, Mullins D. From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing. Mol Biol Cell. 2019 Sep 15;30(20):2537–42. 11.         Trish Groves, Elizabeth Loder. Prepublication histories and open peer review at <em>The BMJ</em>. BMJ. 2014 Sep 3;349:g5394. 12.         Pulverer B. Transparency showcases strength of peer review. Nature. 2010 Nov 1;468(7320):29–31. 13.         The MDPI Editorial Process [Internet]. MDPI; [cited 2024 Apr 29]. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process14.         Publishing and peer review at eLife [Internet]. eLife; [cited 2024 Apr 29]. Available from: https://elifesciences.org/about/peer-review15.         Open Peer Review [Internet]. PLOS; [cited 2024 Apr 29]. Available from: https://plos.org/resource/open-peer-review/16.         Sabine Kastner. Introducing Open Peer Review at <em>JNeurosci</em>. J Neurosci. 2023 Nov 29;43(48):8074. 17.         Bastian H. Signing Critical Peer Reviews & the Fear of Retaliation: What Should We Do? [Internet]. Absolutely Maybe. 2018 [cited 2024 Apr 26]. Available from: https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2018/03/22/signing-critical-peer-reviews-the-fear-of-retaliation-what-should-we-do/18.         Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017;6:588. 19.         Pearson J. Scientific Journal Publishes AI-Generated Rat with Gigantic Penis In Worrying Incident. Vice [Internet]. 2024 Feb 15 [cited 2024 Apr 29]; Available from: https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy3jbz/scientific-journal-frontiers-publishes-ai-generated-rat-with-gigantic-penis-in-worrying-incident20.         Wennerås C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997 May 1;387(6631):341–3. 21.         Link AM. US and Non-US SubmissionsAn Analysis of Reviewer Bias. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):246–7. 

Anonymity in Peer Review

Scan to connect with one of our mobile apps

Coinbase Wallet app

Coinbase app

Or try the Coinbase Wallet browser extension