Question 16.

Let's evaluate the options:

Option A: The passage mentions this concern: "referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them."

Option B: The passage does not mention that one of the reasons to oppose open peer review is to protect reviewers from unwarranted and unjustified criticism. Instead, the passage discusses the concern that reviewers may avoid giving critical feedback if their identities and reports are made public, not because they want to avoid unjust criticism. The key concern is the fear of justified criticism rather than avoiding unjust or unwarranted criticism.

Option C: The passage mentions that reviewers may be less critical in their reports if they fear their reviews will be published. This might prevent reviewers from being honest and offering critical assessments, which are crucial for the integrity of the publishing process.

Option D: Another concern raised in the passage is that reviewers might take longer to submit their reviews if they know they will be publicly scrutinized. This delay in the review process is seen as a disadvantage of open peer review.

Therefore, option B is the correct answer because the passage does not mention concerns about leaving reviewers unexposed to unwarranted criticism.