Even so, there is a very great difference between the claims of an open science project and the claims presented to the public by a fenced establishment. Open and Comprehensive Refereeing Refereeing is an important element of the overall critical process to which scientific knowledge claims must be subjected. Scientists attach much importance to peer review. It is, however, usually conducted very discreetly. Referees are nearly always anonymous, and their reports are seen only by a few insiders - authors, editors and adjudicators.
Most scientists are keenly aware of the merits of peer review.
They are, however, blind to fact that, when there is conflict between the peer group's interest and the public interest, discreet review by peers alone produces conclusions which favour the peer group . For this reason, peer review should be broadened and opened up. There is this risk, but most of us have an inflated conception of how interesting our latest bright ideas are to others. There would be an important incentive - the enhanced credibility of scientific work done in a fully open way and withstanding the scrutiny of all who wish to scrutinise. By contrast, in the OS way, objections of a named referee, or disagreements on research in progress, would be no great deal - merely single items in a large amount of available information.