Open Science, Closed Peer Review?

Daniel Evans, Anna Dreber, Adam Gill, Severine Toussaert and Gary Charness
Additional contact information
Anna Dreber: Stockholm School of Economics
Severine Toussaert: University of Oxford

No dmgex_v1, MetaArXiv from Center for Open Science

Abstract: Open science initiatives have gained traction in recent years. However, open peer-review practices, i.e., reforms that (i) modify the identifiability of stakeholders and (ii) establish channels for the open communication of information between stakeholders, have seen very little adoption in economics. In this paper, we explore the feasibility and desirability of such reforms. We present insights derived from survey data documenting the attitudes of 802 experimental/behavioral economists, a conceptual framework, a literature review, and cross-disciplinary data on current journal practices. On (i), most respondents support preserving anonymity for referees, but views about anonymity for authors and associate editors are mixed. On (ii), most respondents are open to publishing anonymized referee reports, sharing reports between referees, and allowing authors to appeal editorial decisions. Active reviewers, editors, and respondents from the US/Canada are generally less open to transparency reforms.

Date: 2025-07-17
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-sog
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/68785caa7b5eda791c5a9b31/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:metaar:dmgex_v1

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/dmgex_v1

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MetaArXiv from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().