trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Authors can reveal their identity during peer review
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against

Authors are able to reveal their identity during peer review under certain open peer review models and publishing guidelines.

Evidence for · 2
Takeaways from the First Year of Open Peer Review at JNeurosci
2025 · cited by 1
The study notes that open peer review initiatives allow authors the option to share materials and reveal their identities and work publicly.
See more details
The analysis

The retrieved papers discuss open peer review policies where open identities of authors and reviewers are part of the publishing framework, indicating that author identity disclosure is a recognized practice.

More for · 1
Attitudes towards open peer-review in the Croatian Medical Journal
2025 · cited by 0
The study mentions that open peer review encompasses practices such as open identities of authors and reviewers.
Everything we examined (12)
We also searched for evidence AGAINST this claim, not only for it.
  1. Author Country of Origin and Attention on Open Science Platforms: Evidence from COVID-19 Preprintspeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  2. Disparities in Peer Review Tone and the Role of Reviewer Anonymitypeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  3. Open science cannot succeed without open peer reviewpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  4. Confidentiality, Peer Review, and the Submission Case Databasepeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  5. Takeaways from the First Year of Open Peer Review at JNeuroscipeer-reviewedsupports
  6. Blockchain-Enabled Self-Sovereign Identity Applications in Health Care: Scoping Review.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  7. Beyond replacement anxiety: a psychological framework for understanding AI in natural science research.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  8. Evaluating the Methodological Quality of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Systematic Reviews: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Meta-Research Study.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  9. The use of immersive technologies in learning about postpartum hemorrhage: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  10. SELECTIVE TRANSPARENCY IN OPEN PEER REVIEW: A LARGE-SCALE POLICY AUDITpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  11. Attitudes towards open peer-review in the Croatian Medical Journalpeer-reviewedsupports
  12. How LLMs Audit Each Other: Five Mechanisms of Auditor Bias in Cross-Model Peer Review Under Identity Disclosure and Cross-Lingual Conditionspeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked06 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 6506 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt