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 open communication of information between stakeholders, have seen very little adoption in economics. In this paper, we explore the feasibility and desirability of such reforms. We present insights derived from survey data documenting the attitudes of 802 experimental/behavioral economists, a conceptual framework, a literature review, and cross-disciplinary data on current journal practices. On (i), most respondents support preserving anonymity for referees, but views about anonymity for authors and associate editors are mixed. On (ii), most respondents are open to publishing anonymized referee reports, sharing reports between referees, and allowing authors to appeal editorial decisions. Active reviewers, editors, and respondents from the US/Canada are generally less open to transparency reforms.

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.