Not so transparent : Nature Materials : Nature Publishing Group

" ... It is clear that much remains to be explained and, hence, we do not expect this scientific debate to wane. Rather, it suggests that, if substantial findings with potential wide implications become rapidly visible, the relevant scientific communities will work to correct misguided interpretations. Also, journals should not shy away from publishing surprising or potentially controversial results that are likely to challenge current views and generate scientific debate. More generally, scientific debates can be highly demanding. Peer review can be subject to one-sided arguments and rigid views, and the publication of results that are perceived to be controversial can affect the development of the field and the journal's reputation (for better or worse). Editorial decisions should thus be the result of best judgment applied to the appropriate scientific context after all the available arguments (not the votes in favour of publication) in a thorough peer-review process have been considered. Despite all the benefits that open, interactive8 or transparent9 peer review can bring (as exemplified by the Frontiers journals10), in many cases reviewer anonymity is indispensable and double-blind peer review could be helpful. In all cases, incorporation of relevant discussion between authors and reviewers in the final version of the paper or its supplementary information ought to be encouraged. Even if unconditional full transparency remains a utopia, partial transparency could be promoted by publishing anonymous referees' comments, rebuttal and decision letters when there is support from all parties involved. Discussions after publication — through peer-reviewed correspondence, or in blogs and post-publication peer-review services such as Faculty of 1000 and PubPeer — can also enhance the value of a paper and provide additional context. However, where expert mediation is absent, the occasional dominant partisan views or, even worse, anonymous slander, can be all too detrimental to science. As much as we all benefit from open dialogue, we should recognize that the processes of assessing science (including peer review, and grant and hiring evaluations) can be rather subjective and not always fully transparent."