Purpose: Current research indicates problems are emerging in our current system of anonymous journal reviews. We find a proliferation of predatory journals and difficulty in identifying them and explaining the dangers of publishing them to scholars. Predatory journals claim to offer anonymous reviews, but often they do not. Methods: We employ data from The International Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics as a model for transparency (n = 246). Interrater reliability correlations and chi square was used to contrast data from our literature review. Results: Although the interrater correlations were deemed moderate, our results were better than those in the baseline found in the review of literature. This type of data addressing journals is not available to the scientific community but should be. Conclusion: Based on the synthesis of the review of literature and our case study, eight recommendations are offered to improve the anonymous review process for academic journals.

目的：当前的研究表明，我们当前的匿名期刊评论系统中出现了问题。我们发现掠夺性期刊泛滥，难以识别它们并向学者解释将它们出版的危险。掠夺性期刊声称提供匿名评论，但通常不会。方法：我们采用《国际社会工作价值观与伦理杂志》的数据作为透明度模型（n = 246）。评估者间可靠性相关性和卡方用​​于对比我们文献综述中的数据。结果：尽管人际相关性被认为是中等的，但我们的结果比文献综述中发现的基线结果要好。这种类型的数据寻址期刊对科学界来说是不可用的，但应该可用。结论：基于文献综述和我们的案例研究的综合，提出八项建议以改进学术期刊的匿名评审过程。