<div dir="ltr"><b><font color="#ff0000">Open peer review produces better scrutiny of research than traditional methods, according to a new study.</font></b><br><br>Reviews were found to be of slightly higher quality – around 5 per cent better – when authors could see who had reviewed their papers and these assessments were made available with the published article.<br><br>Researchers compared 400 papers in two similar journals: BMC Infectious Diseases, which uses open peer review, and BMC Microbiology, which uses the common “single-blind” process where reviewers know the identity of the author but the author does not know who they are being reviewed by.<div><br><a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-peer-review-better-quality-than-traditional-process">https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-peer-review-better-quality-than-traditional-process</a></div></div>