Review feature suggestion

[Gali124]

So, I have a suggestion that came to mind recently: Since we have a 14-day time span, I was thinking that some reviewers might be taking advantage of the initial reviews to base theirs on. To prevent this from happening, I thought of suggesting a system where reviews could remain 'invisible' for 7 days or until a minimum of 3 reviews are submitted, after which they would become visible and eligible for upvotes.

It's just an idea, of course, and it can certainly be refined. Additional suggestions are always welcome. What do you think?

[dominikusbrian]

Thanks @Gali124 for the feature suggestion toward this. Hiding the review does help in partially alleviating this issue in the short term.

However in the long run, as we are focusing on making open peer review to works going forward. We ideally want to counter this issue by means of improving the professional and moral of the peer reviewer themselves not to use other reviewers thought without crediting the origin, as well as to cover something that is not covered by existing review. Surely, the can also resonate on existing comment and add something new or another perspective to it.

There's no need to pretend that the other reviewer submission before them is not visible and not being read, because of the nature of open peer review, that is a fact that can be utilized. Instead of utilized through idea plagiarism, would be best if an incentive and training could be set in place so researcher and peer reviewer improve or give missing points on top of existing one. That's a step closer toward possible future of collaborative peer review.

That being said, there are efforts underway toward building a tool to identify the % of information extracted from reviewers that submitted early in the process. To sort of serve as guiderail and help both editors and reviewers check whether one reviewer is "parroting" other reviewer, merely summarize the preprint , or actually provide useful contribution and criticism that helps improve the rigor and quality of the manuscript and science behind it.