[cassowary37]

Those are all very real problems (and as you point out, they impact grant review as well). On the other hand, fully transparent peer review doesn't necessary address most of them. Reviewers who have to sign their reviews may be reluctant to anger colleagues (or try to curry favor with them).

As you presumably know a many journals have experimented with open peer review, but editors still need to police the reviews to look for bias. It solves some problems but creates others.

[tomlue]

transparent review isn't a perfect solution. But the problem you suggest of reluctance to anger colleagues or currying favor are worse under the current system than they would be under a transparent one.

Just because other journals failed in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't try again in the future! Maybe there were some mistakes we could learn from? Also the internet is becoming a more familiar tool used more often by more people every day, maybe it just wasn't the right time previously.

[Fomite]

Double-blind peer review fixes "reluctance to anger colleagues or currying favor" and is widely used by journals in my field.

[Nemo_bis]

Maybe.

> In the late 2000s, widespread debate and controversy ensued after Budden and colleagues (2008a) found that a switch to double-blind review in the journal Behavioural Ecol- ogy led to a small but notable 7.9% increase in the 2proportion of articles with female first authors

https://www.eswnonline.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/...

Others agree: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629234/

However:

> Findings from studies of journals that have actually adopted the practice are non-conclusive. For example, Budden and colleagues show that the introduction of double-blind review by Behavioral Ecology was followed by an increase in papers with female first authors (Budden et al., 2008). However, a second paper reports that female first authorship also increased in comparable journals that do not use double blind review (Webb et al., 2008). A study by Madden and colleagues shows that the adoption of double-blind reviewing in the SIGMOD conference led to no measureable change in the proportion of accepted papers coming from “prolific” and less well-established authors (Madden and DeWitt, 2006), but a later study contests this conclusion (Tung, 2006).

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.0016...

[lonelappde]

Simple solution: have a panel of mixed open and anonymous reviewers, and an editorial arbiter.