Peer review will only do its job if referees are named and rated

Fully blinded review has always been a myth, as research has established. Competent reviewers generally know or are able to suss out who authored a paper, and editors who assign reviewers always know the full story. Single blind review is even more subject to bias and manipulation. Unblinded review would seem to be the fairest, and, as this article argues, might help expand the pool of qualified reviewers. However, it is not without its risks, the most important being that, in the always highly competitive worlds of academia where technical disagreements all too often degenerate into personal battles, non-anonymous reviewing opens up a whole new jousting field for enacting personal vendettas and professional revenge.

Great article. I agree with most of the claims. Two reactions: 1. The publish-review-curate model has promise. See eLife and the soon to be up and running MetaROR platform for meta-research. 2. We have platforms for post-publication review. Pubpeer I might be the best one. They offer a browser plug-in that highlights papers with posted comments. It’s a must-have for empiricists and those who rely on empirical studies. Kathy Zeiler, Boston University School of Law