Open science initiatives have gained traction in recent years. However, open peer review practices, i.e., reforms that (i) modify the identifiability of stakeholders and (ii) establish channels for the disclosure and exchange of peer-review information, have seen very little adoption. In this paper, we seek to explore the feasibility and desirability of such reforms. We present insights derived from survey data documenting the attitudes of 802 experimental/behavioral economics researchers and observational evidence on transparency policies across disciplines. Policies considered under (i) include modifications to the identifiability of authors, referees, and editors, both to each other and to the readers of published manuscripts. Those under (ii) relate to the release of peer review documents and metadata, as well as to the establishment of further channels for communication between stakeholders. In evaluating these policies, we pay close attention to the trade-off between increasing transparency and preserving confidentiality.

Peer review is central to the lives of researchers. We conduct a survey on improving peer review to which we received responses from over 1,400 economists. The survey is the bedrock of this article, which was written to (i) document the current state of peer review and (ii) investigate concrete steps towards improving it. We offer a snapshot of the recent submission and peer review activity of respondents, detail the difficulties they report facing, and measure their attitudes about various challenges and possible proposals to address them. We hope that this report will provide fertile ground for the development and implementation of practical solutions for improving peer review in economics.