Open Peer Review
Open Peer Review#
What is Open Peer Review?#
Open Peer review can refer to various practises, including signing your review, publishing reviews along with the paper, and allowing for the community to contribute to the peer review process (Open Science Community Utrecht). Below some different types of Open Peer Review are highlighted, as well as the benefits of opening up the peer review process.
Different types of Open Peer Review#
Publishing peer review content
Decoupling the peer review process from the publication process (see recent announcement by eLife)
Open review before publication through preprints
Open Identities (author or reviewer)
Open discussion between authors, editors and reviewers
Similar to open science practices in general - open peer review is not an ‘all or nothing’ concept. Instead, the open components that make the most sense can be introduced first - or the platform that you’re using might not have opened up all of this yet.
One of the more debated parts of Open Peer Review is whether reviews should be signed [RHDS17] [BGLI+19]. Not everyone is comfortable signing their reviews - particularly people from minoritized groups in research [Fox21]. This could result in less critical reviews if revealing identity is a requirement of Peer Review [Fox21].
Benefits of Open Peer Review#
Including increasing accountability of reviewers, which should in turn increase the quality, fairness, constructiveness and courteousness of reviews
Transparency allows for validation of peer review and identifying biases, which may improve diversity/inclusion of the peer review process
Recognition for Peer Review (especially if it can become a Research Object that can be cited
Reviews can become reusable (as normally the authors of review retain copyright and if they are anonymous you cannot ask their permission)
Reviews can be used as teaching materials to improve the peer review process
The case against double-anonymous peer review#
The ability of double-anonymized review to address biases in peer review remains questionable and can minimise the consequences of these biases without addressing their causes [HRHW22].
Double-anonymous peer review may impede open science practices in several ways [HRHW22]:
Preprint peer review