Anonymity and transparency can both play an important role in effective and fair peer review, writes Kim Eggleton of IOP Publishing. The author describes how, at their publishing company, two approaches to bias reduction have been implemented: All journals have been moved to double-anonymous peer review, with early data suggesting that publication is more likely for anonymized papers. The company has also introduced a transparent peer review process, which shows journal readers the full reviewing history of the papers to increase accountability and reviewer recognition. “If we want to strengthen the foundations of science, we must ensure that the highest and fairest possible standards of peer review are applied to all published work,” writes Eggleton. Times Higher Ed (Subscription) Note: Archived stories may contain dead links or be missing source links.