Open Peer Review (OPR) is part of the scientific evaluation process that, within open science framework, aims to encourage wider and more transparent discourse within the review process1.

Definition

Ross-Hellauer et al. propose the following definition for OPR:

“Open peer review is an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the ethos of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process”.

Open peer review can be implemented in different stages of the review process - pre-or post-publication (1). Open peer review models may include the following characteristics, either alone or in combination (3):

  • publishing peer review content
  • open commenting from the wider community
  • open discussion between authors, editors and reviewers
  • open review before publication through preprint
  • post-publication commenting
  • sharing authors or reviewer identities
  • decoupling the peer review process from the publication process

Two core elements of OPR are: open identities, where reviewer names are public and open reports. (4)

Some examples

An example of OPR is PLOS publisher, in which the authors can opt-in to publish their peer review history once the article is accepted for publication. By signing the review, the reviewer’s name appear alongside the comments. Otherwise, the review is published anonymously. Another example is F1000Research, an open research platform with transparent peer review process with reviewer’s recommendations and reports published (4). The adoption of OPR is growing, being adopted mostly in Medical, and Health Sciences and the Nature Sciences. There are some examples of journals in technology discipline that adopted open reports and open identities, more details can be found in (4).

Benefits

  • May encourage higher responsibility of the review, can improve the review quality, can be more in-depth and constructive (4).
  • Helps contextualize research and gives the reader additional experts opinion (3). There is a high usage of review reports, according to (4)
  • Reinforces the validity of the article (3).
  • Include reviewers as a permanent part of the scientific record, being easier for researchers to claim credit for these activities, thus providing incentives for review (3,1).
  • In some cases it may help to expose possible conflicts of interest (5).

Challenges

  • It may lead reviewers to spend additional time on aspects that do not affect the scientific content, potentially resulting in a higher number of declined review invitations (3).
  • It may create concerns among reviewers regarding the potential negative career consequences for critical review (3).
  • It may cause reviewers to blunt their criticisms.
  • It may lead to serious problems in finding appropriate reviewers (5).
  • The opportunities for nepotism may be increased by an open review system (5).
  • Occasional breakdowns in the peer-review process occur when authors and reviewers bypass editors to negotiate paper revisions directly (5).

Conclusion

  • Open peer review is increasingly being adopted across the academic community. While a fully open review process is often viewed as beneficial for promoting transparency and accountability, some journals argue that anonymous peer review remains essential to preserving the quality of evaluations and preventing potential conflicts. A balanced alternative could be to allow reviewers to voluntarily decide whether to reveal their identity. This approach may offer an appropriate compromise between openness and protection, accommodating the diverse academic disciplines.