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.