| Abstract: |
Open science initiatives have gained traction in recent years. However, open
peer-review practices, i.e., reforms that (i) modify the identifiability of
stakeholders and (ii) establish channels for the open communication of
information between stakeholders, have seen very little adoption in economics.
In this paper, we explore the feasibility and desirability of such reforms. We
present insights derived from survey data documenting the attitudes of 802
experimental/behavioral economists, a conceptual framework, a literature
review, and cross-disciplinary data on current journal practices. On (i), most
respondents support preserving anonymity for referees, but views about
anonymity for authors and associate editors are mixed. On (ii), most
respondents are open to publishing anonymized referee reports, sharing reports
between referees, and allowing authors to appeal editorial decisions. Active
reviewers, editors, and respondents from the US/Canada are generally less open
to transparency reforms. |