Ph.D. students lecture club: Open versus Closed peer review

At ISPED, the research institute where I work, we have a weekly Ph.D. students seminar. It is an informal meeting of (more or less) all the Ph.D. students of the institute, bringing together people from epidemiology, medical informatics, biostats, etc. Each student gets 20 minutes sharp to talk either about his/her research or any article of his/her choosing (possibly a little bit outside of our respective research domains), followed by 10 minutes of questions.

Last wednesday, I presented the following article (slides):
Leek JT, Taub MA, Pineda FJ (2011). Cooperation between Referees and Authors Increases Peer Review Accuracy. PLoS ONE 6(11):e26895.
It is about a game model for peer review. As a newbie to research and all, I found it quite an interesting read. Open peer review (where you know who is assessing the quality of your work) might not be as bad as one could intuitively think, quite  the opposite actually. Check it out (it’s open access)!

But remember:

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

George E. P. Box