Some online journals have abandoned the tradition of publishing articles reviewed anonymously by the writer’s peers, known as peer-review. Instead, the journals use an “open review” process, in which the author knows the reviewer. 

 Proponents say this leads to more amicable reviews because reviewers can no longer hide behind anonymity. But opponents argue the new approach could lead to too much politeness. The reviewer could be afraid of hurting the author’s feelings, and edit the article less critically.This could diminish the quality of  published work.  

For example, John Bohannon, a Harvard University biologist and writer, submitted an article full of intentional errors to 304 open-access journals, reports Science magazine. Even though Bohannon used a fake name and said he taught at a fake university, more than half of the journals accepted his article for publication. 

 “Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately,” Bohannon wrote in Science. “Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.”

Inside Higher Ed reported that many of the online publications that accepted Bohannon’s bogus article used an open-review process that allows readers to review articles. Opponents of that method claim it can destroy the credibility of published work. If the public can review an article, then anyone can comment with no guarantee that their argument is valid. 

According to Cynthia Istook, associate department head of the College of Textiles at N.C. State, the open online reviews could add credence to the article or work to negate it. However, she said she steers clear of articles that have not undergone rigorous blind review.        

 “I need to have that kind of informed endorsement that what I am reading is based on sound scientific process by people who are authorities in the field and who have nothing to gain by the endorsement,” Istook said.

Assistant communication professor Kami Kosenko stated that this new review process both intrigues and troubles her. 

“On one hand, I would welcome the input of more individuals in the review process. However, I also worry that having too much feedback would impede or lengthen this process, which is already cumbersome enough,” Kosenko said. 

Kosenko said that given the quality of comments posted in other online venues, she imagines that the feedback authors receive would be more destructive than constructive.