A survey of more than 3,000 academic scientists worldwide has found that an overwhelming majority believe peer review in journals is necessary.

Amid recent debate about the performance of peer review, the survey, performed by Mark Ware, a publishing consultant, found that nine out of 10 scientists believe peer review improves the quality of published papers, and just one out of eight is dissatisfied with the current form of review.

Still, more than half of those surveyed said they would prefer both reviewers and authors to be anonymous; currently, most journals make authors’ names known to reviewers. The opposite type — open peer review, where both names are revealed — has gained some support in recent years, but almost half of respondents to the survey said that a journal’s disclosure of their name would make them less likely to review manuscripts for it.

Those surveyed supported review online after publication, but as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, pre-publication peer review.

The survey also found that the average peer review takes 80 days, that the average number of manuscripts each reviewer reads yearly is eight, and that each reviewer tends to spend five hours on a manuscript over the course of three to four weeks.

The survey was paid for by the Publishing Research Consortium. —Lila Guterman