This study examines whether there is any evidence of bias in two areas of common critique of open, non-anonymous peer review - and used in the post-publication, peer review system operated by the open-access scholarly publishing platform F1000Research. First, is there evidence of bias where a reviewer based in a specific country assesses the work of an author also based in the same country? Second, are reviewers influenced by being able to see the comments and know the origins of previous reviewer? Methods: Scrutinising the open peer review comments published on F1000Research, we assess the extent of two frequently cited potential influences on reviewers that may be the result of the transparency offered by a fully attributable, open peer review publishing model: the national affiliations of authors and reviewers, and the ability of reviewers to view previously-published reviewer reports before submitting their own. The effects of these potential influences were investigated for all first versions of articles published by 8 July 2019 to F1000Research. In 16 out of the 20 countries with the most articles, there was a tendency for reviewers based in the same country to give a more positive review. The difference was statistically significant in one. Only 3 countries had the reverse tendency. Second, there is no evidence of a conformity bias. When reviewers mentioned a previous review in their peer review report, they were not more likely to give the same overall judgement. Although reviewers who had longer to potentially read a previously published reviewer reports were slightly less likely to agree with previous reviewer judgements, this could be due to these articles being difficult to judge rather than deliberate non-conformity.

中文翻译：

---

在学术出版中使用开放的、非匿名的同行评审会引入偏见吗？F1000Research 发表后开放同行评审发表模型的证据

本研究检查在开放、非匿名同行评审的两个常见批评领域是否存在任何偏见证据，并在开放获取学术出版平台 F1000Research 运营的发表后同行评审系统中使用。首先，在某个特定国家/地区的审稿人评估同样位于同一国家/地区的作者的作品时，是否存在偏见的证据？第二，能不能看到评论，知道以前审稿人的来历，对审稿人有影响吗？方法：仔细审查在 F1000Research 上发表的公开同行评审意见，我们评估了两个经常被引用的对审稿人的潜在影响的程度，这可能是完全归因的开放同行评审出版模型提供的透明度的结果：作者的国家隶属关系和审稿人，以及审阅者在提交自己的审阅者报告之前查看以前发布的审阅者报告的能力。对 2019 年 7 月 8 日之前发表到 F1000Research 的所有第一版文章研究了这些潜在影响的影响。在文章最多的 20 个国家中，有 16 个国家/地区的审稿人倾向于给予更积极的评价。差异在统计上是显着的。只有 3 个国家有相反的趋势。其次，没有证据表明存在一致性偏差。当评审员在他们的同行评审报告中提到之前的评审时，他们不太可能给出相同的总体判断。虽然有更长时间阅读以前发表的审稿人报告的审稿人不太可能同意以前审稿人的判断，