Julio Larios, PhD researcher in Neuro-rehabilitation,
makes a comparison between traditional peer review and open peer review. Whilst
traditional peer review is a quality assurance system for scientific
publications, it also has flaws. It is a slow process that takes times, does
not necessarily mean papers are high quality (as the increase in paper
retractions shows), and prone to bias as it favours positives and exciting
results. Peer review is not transparent (reviewers are not known and reviews
not published), takes time and lacks public recognition. Preprints can speed up
the process but lacks scientific discussion. Open peer review can improve
quality and reduce bias, as the review report is published alongside the paper;
but it may be difficult to find reviewers. Alternatives are journals organised
by researchers, grant-specific platforms and recommendation systems (Peer
Community In).