As in other areas of society, transparency in academic research is currently considered a panacea. Better peer review, less waste science, better access to knowledge, less fraud, better research, more public participation, greater reach of scientific publications, less influence of the old boy’s networks, greater efficiency in research, higher credibility, reliability and visibility. These high expectations raise the question of why scholarly research, one of whose basic principles is public engagement and organised scepticism, is not only a proponent of increased transparency, but is also reluctant to act on it in practice, even warning of potentially harmful consequences. The chapter explores the question of whether the wisdom-of-the-crowd also has a “dark side.” What changes when academic researchers, reviewers and decision-makers feel much more observed than today? Do we have to take into account that more transparency is accompanied by counterproductive activities such as covert activity, a culture of blame and even fraud? Do we have to ask and in a more careful and differentiated way where more transparency is helpful and where it is rather counterproductive?