Transparency in peer review is a noble ideal to aspire to. But when we say we want peer review to be more transparent, what do we mean? Transparency can take several forms, and this series of conversations aims to take a deep and nuanced look into what transparency in peer review can mean. What are the ways peer review can be more transparent, in both traditional and open peer review models? Who are the stakeholders pushing for more transparency and why? How does transparency in peer review benefit the scientific community? How does it benefit the public?
Perspectives on Transparency in Peer Review, Part 1: What Do We Mean by “Transparency?”
Principal, Tom Lang Communications and Training International
Editorial Manager, PLOS Pathogens and PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
David B. Resnik, JD, PhD
Bioethicist and IRB Chair, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Pedro T. Ramirez, MD
Professor, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Our panel discussion will be divided into four podcasts, with one posted each day from September 11 through 14 right here on the J&J Editorial website. Follow us on Twitter @jjeditorial for the new releases!