Open Peer Review ****************************************************************************************** * ****************************************************************************************** After you submit a manuscript to a journal and if it passes the initial in-house assessmen for external peer review. Different journals may vary in terms of how they organise the pe example, the number of external reviewers or the role of the Editorial Board may differ. Traditionally, journals operate a single-blind or double-blind peer review. In this form o the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers and/or the reviewers do not know the the authors. The aim of the blinded peer review is to avoid potential biases such as autho nationality, affiliation or academic rank, and to avoid potential retaliation against crit especially if the reviewer is at an early career stage. Some scholars point out that it might be difficult to truly anonymise submitted manuscript promote an open peer review model, which attempts to make the review process more transpar credit reviewers for their work. ****************************************************************************************** * Definition and principles ****************************************************************************************** There is no single definition of open peer review; rather, the term encompasses different to make the peer review process more transparent. In his comprehensive review, Tony Ross-Hellauer (2017) [ URL "https://doi.org/10.12688/ f1000research.11369.2"] identifies the following ways in which peer review can be opened. platforms that perform “ open peer review ” may apply one or more of these traits. *========================================================================================= * *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Open identities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = authors and reviewers know each other’s identity Among the proposed benefits of open identities are the increase of review quality as revie be held accountable for their reports, and it could make potential conflicts of interest m Furthermore, reviewers would receive credit for their work. On the other hand, opponents o argue that reviewers might not be sincere in their reviews to avoid causing offence. Furth are concerned that revealing the identities of the authors and reviewers might enable soci ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Open reports ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = review reports are published alongside the relevant article The reports are often published along with the reviewers’ identities (combination of open identities), but it does not have to be the case. The benefits of publishing review report potentially useful scholarly information that has traditionally been hidden can be reused would be more transparent as readers could consider the criticisms themselves. If the repo along with reviewers’ names, it would allow reviewers to get recognition and credit for th review reports could become citable outputs. It is also argued that knowing that the repor public, the reviewers would be motivated to be more thorough in their reviews. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Open participation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = wider community is able to contribute to the review process Traditionally, editors would identify and invite specific reviewers. In open participation manuscript is placed online and interested members of the scholarly community are invited the review process. In this way, scholars from related disciplines, who would normally not can contribute to the process. The implementation of this method might differ across platf might be open to anyone (anonymous or registered), or some credentials might be required. of this method further argue that it might help resolve potential conflicts associated wit selection. Critics of this approach focus on question regarding the reviewers’ qualificati to participate and motivations as this approach might increase engagement by those with a interest. Due to the raised issues, it is unlikely that this method would replace traditio peer review, but it might be used as a complement that runs parallel with the traditional ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Open interaction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = direct reciprocal discussion between authors and reviewers, and/or between reviewers, is encouraged In traditional review, authors and reviewers can usually communicate only via a response t letter mediated by the editor. Using open interaction, authors and reviewers could work to improving the paper. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Open pre-review manuscripts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = manuscripts are published online in advance of or in synchrony with any formal peer revi subject specific preprint platforms like arXiv or bioRxiv) Other scholars can then be invited to comment on the pre-published manuscript and their co subsequently incorporated into the revised version of the paper as it goes through traditi with a journal. The benefit of this approach is that the findings can be shared immediatel need to wait for the peer review process to be over. If you would like to publish your man preprint, make sure that the journal you are submitting to allows this. Especially if a jo double-blind peer review, they might not want the manuscript to be available online prior peer review process. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Open final-version commenting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = refers to a process where scholars review or comment on the final “version of record” pu Some journals might offer their own commentary sections for such post-publication feedback readers can publish their comments anywhere online, e.g., via blog posts, academic social Twitter. The idea behind open final-version commenting is to point out that peer review is process rather than a distinct process leading to publication. There is even a specialised post-publication peer review called PubPeer [ URL "https://pubpeer.com/"] . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Open platforms (“decoupled review”) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = it is a label for review facilitated by a different organizational entity than the venue Such platforms invite authors to submit manuscripts directly to them, then organise review their own community of reviewers and returns review reports. The platforms may vary in how manuscripts are treated. With some platforms, participating journals have access to the ma and reviews and may approach the author with an offer of submission, other platforms might manuscript along with the reviews to the author’s preferred journal. This approach aims to problem of duplication of effort when manuscripts undergo peer review at several journals submitted, rejected, then submitted elsewhere, and so on until they find their home. Main source: Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review [ver review: 4 approved]. F1000Research 6:588 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 [ doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2"] )