Open Peer Review

Last updated on 2025-05-01 | Edit this page

Overview

Questions

  • What is open peer review?
  • What are the benefits and challenges of open peer review?
  • How can I respond to critiques of open peer review?

Objectives

  • Understand the open peer review (OPR) process.
  • Explain the benefits of OPR over traditional peer review.
  • Construct an argument for OPR when faced with common objections.

Open Peer Review (OPR) or open review is one way the Open Science principles of transparency, collegiality and inclusivity have been made real. In OPR reviewers name, and/or their reports are made available to the public. In some cases OPR means that articles can be commented on by the public in a form of open review.

A (very) brief history of Open Peer Review

Open peer review has a long history; in fact the commentaries or letters written between authors in the early Enlightenment can be considered a peer review of sorts and since they were signed they were “open”. <> The 20th century saw a consolidation of review types into the formal anonymous review that many, if not most journals still use today. With the evolution of the Open Science movement in the late 1990s and early 2000s, peer review was identified as one place science and research could improve and become more transparent. The first adoptions of open review practices were launched in 1999 by Journal of Medical Internet Research. Since that time publishers and journal editors have …making more articles subject to or available for open peer review processes. More information on the history of Open Peer Review can be found at: Wikipedia, https://doi.org/10.1038/6295, and https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.

Types of Open Peer Review

Open Identities - The removal of anonymity from reviewers, and/or authors in the review process. The reviewer identity can be known to just the authors and editors or published in the research article.

Open Reports - Reviewer reports, and author responses are published alongside the article. These reviews and responses become part of the scholarly record, but reviewers may still be anonymous. This process does not mean that all of the reviewer suggestions are incorporated into the article. This method is sometimes called “Published Peer Review History.”

Open Participation - Reviews and comments can be made by readers at any point after publication of an article. Some articles have been reviewed before publication and others might use open commenting as their review process. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3

Type Who Is It Open To? What Happens?
Open Identities Reviewers and Authors Reviewer names are known to authors or publicly listed.
Open Reports Reviewers, Authors, Public Reports are published with the article, authors may or may not accept all suggestions.
Open Participation Reviewers, authors, the public The public can review and annotate articles, post-publication.

Spectrum of Openness for Peer Review

Challenge

Read the following statements and determine whether they are True (T) or False (F). Briefly explain your reasoning.

  1. Current peer review practices can be open or closed on a spectrum.
  2. Open participation means that peer review occurs after publication.
  3. An open report can include suggestions that the authors did not take.
  1. True — Peer review has always occurred on a spectrum from closed to open. Most journals use a closed process (e.g., anonymous reviewers). Some use double-blind review, while others reveal the identities of reviewers and/or publish their review reports.
  2. False — Open participation allows members of the public to comment on published articles, but it does not imply that no pre-publication peer review has occurred.
  3. True — Open reports make peer review content and author responses public, but authors are not required to adopt every suggestion made by reviewers.

Benefits and Goals of open review

Open review aims to change the culture of scholarly publishing by creating more transparent, inclusive review processes and by giving credit for what is uncredited (and unpaid), but essential labor on the part of reviewers. The transparency that is created by having open reviewer identities is thought to create more collegial reviews. Essentially, it is thought that if your name is attached to a review you are less likely to be overly harsh or unprofessional in your comments or writing. In addition, open reviewer identities is a means for a journal to give credit for the hard work of reviewing. This labor is also unpaid, but an essential piece of the scholarly communications process. With credit the labor is made visible and can be used by reviewers in their own tenure and performance assessments.

Open reports and public commenting is an attempt to make reviews more inclusive. For example, newer members of a discipline might not have a broad enough network to be asked to peer review for a given journal. A signed comment left on an article would be one way to gain experience with reviewing while still new to a discipline. These public comments as reviews also give people who are in orthogonal or even separate disciplines the ability to comment and perhaps make the case for interdisciplinary studies and work in the future. While taking the original discipline’s methods and traditions is imperative, opening up the review to different perspectives can bring a fresh take on a subject and ways to understand a research question.

Common Arguments Against Open Review

Some frequently raised concerns about OPR include:

  • Reduced acceptance of review invitations for signed reviews
  • Power dynamics between new and established researchers affecting feedback
  • Loss of anonymity introducing bias or reducing candor in critiques
  • A shift in responsibility away from editors, who should already ensure quality
  • The perception that open processes diminish the role of editors in publication decisions

These concerns are discussed in more detail below.

There are a few common arguments against OPR including that signed reviews lead to fewer acceptances of a review request, that editors should be doing what OPR attempts to do and that OPR and the removal of anonymity can impact reviews. In the first instance, while it was shown that review requests acceptance went down in the late 1990s and early 2000s at some journals as they rolled out signed reviews, this has not been a common feature of current open review processes. <> It could be expected that a significant change to how reviewers have done their work could face resistance, but as it has become more common more reviewers are comfortable with signing their work.

The removal of reviewer anonymity as a benefit was discussed in the last section, but removing author anonymity can also have the opposite effect. If a reviewer knows, or knows of an author it is possible that their review can be skewed because of positive or negative relational dynamics and bias, including gendered bias. Additionally, authors can feel that there is no recourse for unfair comments when they are hidden by anonymity that they themselves do not receive.

Ethical Considerations in Open Review

Open peer review introduces new ethical dimensions:

  • Power dynamics can influence the tone and content of reviews, especially when junior researchers are asked to evaluate work by senior scholars — or vice versa. The loss of anonymity may amplify existing hierarchies.

  • Peer pressure can emerge when reviewers feel compelled to align their feedback with that of others, especially in open or crowd-sourced review environments. This may reduce honest critique or discourage dissenting opinions.

These dynamics underscore the need for clear editorial guidelines and thoughtful moderation in open review settings.

Balancing the pros and cons for equitable peer review

As can be seen from the previous sections there are pros and cons to open peer review processes. It is imperative that both the positives and negatives be explored and this continues to be a fruitful research avenue for scholarly communication researchers. We do know however that not all open practices are beneficial for all participants and therefore suggest that instead of aiming to make the process as open as possible we aim to make it as equitable as possible. Equitable peer review can be defined as policies and processes that aim to reduce bias and improve inclusionary practice in the review process.

Callout

To explore models and best practices in peer review — including discussions of equity and transparency — see Indiana University Library’s Peer Review guide.

Equitable activities include providing transparent peer review guidelines, keeping author anonymity and allowing reviewers to sign their reviews, but not requiring it and allowing for open review reports and post-publication review by readers. None of these are required thus allowing for review processes that are as open as possible, but as closed as necessary to make sure those involved are not overly impacted by negative power dynamics or bias. The goal of equitable review is good science that is reviewed with constructive criticism and an eye for improvement.

Challenge: Positionality Reflection

Based on your own background (e.g., gender, seniority, race), how might open review benefit or hinder your ability to publish? Reflect privately or share with a partner.

Key Points

  • Peer review in its current form can support oppressive systems and policies.
  • Open review comes in different flavors which vary in their openness.
  • These open reviews can both support inclusive science and hinder it if not implemented in a respectful and responsible way.
  • Many of the hindrances to open review are cultural and can be changed over time just as Open Science generally is changing cultural norms in science.