From: Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?
Number | Questions |
---|---|
1. | Is your area of expertise in medicine or biology? |
If medicine, are you a clinical academic or full time academic? | |
2. | How many years have you been working as an academic? |
3. | Choose one that best describes you: |
I was on the original board of BMC Clinical Pharmacology | |
I was on the original board of BMC Pharmacology | |
I joined the editorial board of BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology within the last 2 years. | |
4. | As an author, have you published in an open peer review journal? (meaning that the reviewers’ identity was revealed to you as an author) |
4a (if yes) Do you think reports were less/equally/more useful to you than those from a closed peer review journal? If you have never published in a closed peer review journal please go to the next question. | |
4b (if no) Would you consider publishing in an open peer review journal? (if no, why?) | |
5. | As a reviewer which peer review system do you prefer, and why? |
5a Open (authors and reading public know reviewers’ identity) | |
5b single-blind (i.e. reviewers know authors’ identity but not vice versa) | |
5c double-blind (i.e. authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity) | |
6. | As a handling editor do you prefer a different (from your answer to question 5) model of peer review? |
6a (If yes), which model do you prefer and why do you have a different preference as an editor compared to as a reviewer? | |
7. | As a reader do you look at the pre-publication histories on BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology (or any of the open peer review journals in the BMC series)? |
7a If no, why not? | |
7b If yes, what is your main reason for looking at the pre-publication history? | |
8. | Do you have any further comments on open peer review? |