English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas ofcommon critique of open, non-anonymous peer review - and used in thepost-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarlypublishing platform F1000Research. First, is there evidence of bias where areviewer based in a specific country assesses the work of an author also basedin the same country? Second, are reviewers influenced by being able to see thecomments and know the origins of previous reviewer? Methods: Scrutinising theopen peer review comments published on F1000Research, we assess the extent oftwo frequently cited potential influences on reviewers that may be the resultof the transparency offered by a fully attributable, open peer reviewpublishing model: the national affiliations of authors and reviewers, and theability of reviewers to view previously-published reviewer reports beforesubmitting their own. The effects of these potential influences wereinvestigated for all first versions of articles published by 8 July 2019 toF1000Research. In 16 out of the 20 countries with the most articles, there wasa tendency for reviewers based in the same country to give a more positivereview. The difference was statistically significant in one. Only 3 countrieshad the reverse tendency. Second, there is no evidence of a conformity bias.When reviewers mentioned a previous review in their peer review report, theywere not more likely to give the same overall judgement. Although reviewers whohad longer to potentially read a previously published reviewer reports wereslightly less likely to agree with previous reviewer judgements, this could bedue to these articles being difficult to judge rather than deliberatenon-conformity.

Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing  introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000 post-publication open peer review  publishing model