Open Peer Review

- __Open-identity__ or Attributed Peer Review (as opposed to anonymous peer review) - __Open-disclosure__ or Public Peer Review, where the peer review contents are publicly available - __Open-invitation__ or Post-publication Peer Review, where anyone interested can contribute to the peer review process. Can also be a continuous process after publication.

# Wellcome Open Research There are many good reasons for being open about referee identities and comments - wellcomeopenresearch.org

__First__: We believe that secret refereeing, where authors don't know who has reviewed their work and referees don't have to publicly stand by their comments, opens up the possibility of bias. Referees who review work that competes with their own may be tempted to unfairly criticize or delay its publication.

__Second__: Referee reports can be interesting and informative and we believe that everyone should have a chance to see them. At their best, they offer an objective critique that adds real value to the article in question for authors and readers alike. It is also interesting to see the range of reviews some papers receive – positive, negative and neutral – which often reflects the real breadth of expert opinion in controversial and cutting-edge areas of science.

__Third__: If referee reports are kept secret, referees get no credit for their contributions. They devote an immense amount of time and effort to reviewing other scientists' work and advising them on how to improve it, and it is fair that this should be recognized and acknowledged.

__Fourth__: publicly accessible, signed reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous, behind-the-scenes reviews – this has also been shown in randomized controlled trials. So the act of publishing the reports actually improves the quality of the advice the authors receive.

# Selecting Referees