Open peer-review papers are less likely to be retracted, study finds
This digest was compiled by AI from multiple sources — links to the originals are below.
A study of 116,359 papers published by PLOS since May 2019 found that those with publicly available peer-review reports were less likely to be retracted than those without. Only 105 papers with open reviews were retracted, compared to 321 with closed peer review. The authors suggest the opt-in choice may signal researcher confidence and quality.
Retraction Rates
The study examined 116,359 papers published in PLOS journals, where authors can choose to publish peer-review reports upon acceptance. Over 40% (46,920 papers) opted for open reviews. Among those, just 105 were later retracted, yielding a 0.22% retraction rate, while 321 closed-review papers (0.46%) were retracted. The preprint, posted on MetaArXiv, does not explain the association directly.
Reviewer Sentiment
Co-author Matt Spick of the University of Surrey investigated whether authors selectively publish favorable reviews. He compared reviewer sentiment across PLOS and BMC journals with open reports and found no meaningful difference. This indicates that the lower retraction rate is not driven by cherry-picking positive reviews.
Confidence Indicator
Spick and co-author Adrian Barnett of Queensland University of Technology hypothesize that researchers embracing open science and confident in their work are more likely to opt for open peer review. Jessica Polka of MIT Open Learning called this a useful signal of author confidence and article quality. The choice itself may serve as a proxy for research integrity.
What's Next
The MetaArXiv preprint awaits formal peer review and journal publication. It remains unclear whether the association persists across diverse disciplines or other publishers.
1 source
Open peer-review papers are less likely to be retracted, study finds
