Is participating in open peer reviewing good or bad for early career scientists? I see a few questions about open peer review (OPR), as more publishers move towards open access and open review.
As an early career scientist I wondering if publishing my name as a reviewer is a risky business as I am usually very thorough in my reviews but also try to be as fair and friendly as possible.
So I know that being a reviewer doesn't really count that much, it seems that publishing my name has potentially more pitfalls than advantages. I don't like to make &quot;enemies 'among my peers as I respect their work, so I am afraid that my comments might be taken the wrong way and create potential conflicts. This for me would be the only reason not to participate in OPR. In my field people are mostly open and friendly, but of course there is competition.
The only possible advantage I see is that when I am being reviewed I might receive a more fair treatment similarly to the one I have given, but this seems less likely as the pool of potential reviewers is large.
Are there more advantages or disadvantages when participating in OPR?
My opinion:
I don't see your reasons either for and against as compelling. I suspect it's neither risky nor significantly advantageous.
You should take this on if you think it a good way to contribute to progress in your discipline. You might learn something too.