This topic is for discussion for "Preprint review: addressing cultural barriers." To go back to this session in Cadmore, click here.
NOTES from the session chat:
The Bias Reflection Guide is a tool developed by the PREreview team for anyone who is reviewing a research manuscript before or after the manuscript publication. The tool is meant to help the reviewer assess their own biases guiding them through a non-judgmental, self-reflective process.
From the physics journal publisher perspective… I think we are meaning several different things by “review” here. There’s the “journal club” mostly informal review, where the reviewers are just trying to understand a paper together. It’s a little uncomfortable to expose your lack of understanding of something in public like that, so keeping it informal or temporary or perhaps anonymous (but moderated) is needed there I think. Then there’s the more formal review for publication, where the reviewer is really trying to assess the quality of the paper, and the review comes hopefully after they’ve fully read and understood the paper.
And then there are hybrids of the two where preprints are reviewed by a group in a “live-streamed journal club” 
Live-streamed Preprint Journal Clubs
This may be the BMJ paper: Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: a randomised trial