Despite enthusiasm for the concept, open peer review was not widely popular, either among authors or by scientists invited to comment.
by Philip Campbell et al.
On 1 June this year, Nature launched a trial of open peer review. The intention was to explore the interest of researchers in a particular model of open peer review, whether as authors or as reviewers. It was also intended to provide Nature’s editors and publishers with a test of the practicalities of a potential extension to the traditional procedures of peer review.
Several times during the exercise, researchers and journalists asked us whether the trial reflected a sense of dissatisfaction or concern about our long-standing procedure. On the contrary, we believe that this process works as well as any system of peer review can. Furthermore, in our occasional surveys of authors we receive strong signals of satisfaction: in the most recent survey, 74% agreed with the statement that their paper had been improved by the process, 20% felt neutral, while 6% disagreed.
Nevertheless, peer review is never perfect and we need to keep it subjected to scrutiny as community expectations and new opportunities evolve. In particular, we felt that it was time to explore a more participative approach.