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.

Working from home (WFH) is particularly prevalent in the Nordic countries. The likely causes of this include the Nordic countries’ occupational structure, technological infrastructure, digital preparedness and high levels of trust between different agents. Working from home most often takes a hybrid form, in which remote working is combined with on-site activities. This compromise reduces commuting time while still allowing for face-to-face communication and coordination during parts of the working week. Although the findings from research on productivity effects are mixed, many employers may benefit from introducing hybrid working because it may help them recruit and retain employees. Suitable arrangements are likely to be specific to each organisation, and policy makers should remain as neutral as possible in this process of transformation. Policy makers should monitor a number of possible indirect effects, including changes to city structures and the impact on inequality and workers’ health.

Peer review is central to the lives of researchers. We conduct a survey on improving peer review, to which we received over 1,400 responses from economists who made the effort to respond a not-so-short survey during a difficult time (COVID-19 pandemic). 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, detailing the difficulties they report facing, and measuring their attitudes about the various component issues and the proposals suggested 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.

The project website can be found here and the related VoxEU article can be found here.