Open science, closed peer review?

Journal article

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.

Authors: Charness, G; Dreber, A; Evans, D; Gill, A; Toussaert, S

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Journal: Journal of the Economic Science Association
• Pages: 1-16
• Publication date: 2026-05-06
• Acceptance date: 2026-01-22
• DOI: 10.1017/esa.2026.10030
• EISSN: 2199-6776
• ISSN: 2199-6784
• Language: English
• Keywords: open science; A11; journals; C83; editorial policies; A14; transparency; peer review