Across the 27 journals adopting transparent peer review included in this study, a total of 18175 authors were "opted-in" to transparent peer review on submission and 15586 authors remained opted-in, i.e. 86% of authors. A small proportion of authors (244) changed their mind about their preference of peer review model when submitting a revised version with 57% wanting to adopt transparent peer review.
Submissions to journals adopting TPR and control journals c did not change during the study period, both groups had increased submissions.
INSERT FIGURE
However, the number of submissions that were peer reviewed did change, with the editor making more of the decisions in those journals adopting transparent peer review
INSERT FIGURE
Those journals that
To include:
Submissions not effected by TPR.
Editors make more decisions
A total of 244 authors changed their mind?
Times to first decision and final decision did not get longer for journals once transparent peer review was introduced, as both the journals operating transparent peer review and the control journals were faster.
Do more reviewers need to be invited?
Number of revisions does not increase
Page views?
Subject differences? With caveat this is still small study medicine and nursing take longer.
Discussion
{Notes}
Comparison of data from the journals that joined the pilot pre- and post- the introduction of transparent peer review with control journals for the same time period enabled us to determine if any of the effects we were seeing could be attributed solely to transparent peer review or if there were other factors involved.
Then discuss findings.
Mention our 'opt-in' set up favours take up - higher than others e.g. PLOS. But this was a deliberate decision etc etc.