trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Open peer review increases transparency compared to blind review processes

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
10 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that open peer review increases transparency compared to blind review processes?

Yes. Evidence consistently shows that open peer review—through open identities, published reports, and transparent interactions—enhances transparency relative to traditional blind review processes.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 10 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.

Evidence for · 10
Wikipedia: Open peer review
Reference article covering this claim directly
Get citation
Wikipedia: Open peer review. (n.d.). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review

See more details
More for · 9
mBio: Blacklists and Whitelists To Tackle Predatory Publishing: a Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis
2019
Notes that whitelists evaluate transparency concepts in peer review and publishing.
Get citation
Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). mBio: Blacklists and Whitelists To Tackle Predatory Publishing: a Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis. mBio. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00411-19

Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery: Truth and Transparency, Compromise and Climate Change
2022
Connects transparency with truth and verifiable reporting in scientific publishing.
Get citation
Lapeña, J. F. (2022). Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery: Truth and Transparency, Compromise and Climate Change. Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. https://pjohns.pso-hns.org/index.php/pjohns/article/view/2015

Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience: Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review
2012
Explicitly states open peer review increases the transparency of article selection processes.
Get citation
eSandewall, E. & eSandewall, E. (2012). Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience: Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00009

2 recorded entries grouped as this source

Additional records of the same source are shown below. They are not counted as additional sources.

OpenAIRE: Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review
2012
Identifies increasing transparency as a key purpose of open peer review.
Get citation
OpenAIRE: Maintaining Live Discussion in Two-Stage Open Peer Review. (2012). OpenAIRE. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00009

OpenAIRE: Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports
2026
Demonstrates that publishing peer review reports increases editorial transparency compared to unpublished ones.
Get citation
OpenAIRE: Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports. (2026). OpenAIRE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101760

OpenAIRE: Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process
2016
Contrasts blind reviews with open processes, showing open systems allow public scrutiny and increase transparency.
Get citation
OpenAIRE: Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process. (2016). OpenAIRE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.04.014

OpenAIRE: Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?
2022
Compares methods and notes transparent peer review shows readers the full review history to enhance accountability.
Get citation
OpenAIRE: Transparency versus anonymity: which is better to eliminate bias in peer review?. (2022). OpenAIRE. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.584

OpenAIRE: What Drives Paper Acceptance? A Process-Centric Analysis of Modern Peer Review
2025
Notes that open platforms transform peer review into a transparent and interactive process.
Get citation
OpenAIRE: What Drives Paper Acceptance? A Process-Centric Analysis of Modern Peer Review. (2025). OpenAIRE. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2509.25701

Penerapan Open Science di Indonesia agar riset lebih terbuka, mudah Diakses, dan Meningkatkan Dampak Saintifik
2017
States post-publication peer review adds openness, transparency, and objectivity.
Get citation
Irawan, D. E., Rachmi, C. N., Irawan, H., Abraham, J., Kusno, K., Multazam, M. T., Rosada, K. K., Nugroho, S. H., Kusumah, G., Holidin, D., & Aziz, N. (2017). Penerapan Open Science di Indonesia agar riset lebih terbuka, mudah Diakses, dan Meningkatkan Dampak Saintifik. peer-reviewed literature. https://doi.org/10.22146/BIP.17054

Use of ChatGPT to Explore Gender and Geographic Disparities in Scientific Peer Review.
2024
Mentions trends in promoting transparency by publishing peer-review reports alongside papers.
Get citation
P, S. (2024). Use of ChatGPT to Explore Gender and Geographic Disparities in Scientific Peer Review.. peer-reviewed literature. https://doi.org/10.2196/57667

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.

Receipt History
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8205 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work