Peer review is a structured model that assesses the quality and credibility of scholarly research. The discussion around traditional peer review has never really stopped. While it’s a staple of academic publishing and must be passed before publication, it is increasingly scrutinized for its inefficiencies and lack of transparency. On the other hand, open peer review is where the identities of authors and reviewers are known to each other. This adds extra transparency to the reviewing process.
Importantly, there are different types of peer review, with researchers and journals free to use whatever models best suit their needs. But the value of transparency in academic publishing continues to grow, making open peer review a popular choice.
Additionally, there are types of publications that complement open review models, such as preprints. Preprints have become widely used for scholarly communication, enabling rapid sharing of findings, early feedback, greater visibility, and new opportunities for collaboration, despite concerns existing about the fact that they are not formally peer reviewed. Preprints are immediately accessible to the public, while review reports are produced and become available over time.
It’s this transparency, along with other core principles such as accountability and accessibility, that makes open peer review and preprints popular for all parties involved in the publication of scholarly research.
What’s unique about open peer review is that it doesn’t limit the assessment of scholarly research to a closed group of experts. It opens up the process, thus inviting community feedback to shape the process.
In this article, we explore how researchers can combine the advantages of both open peer review and preprints to create a more transparent and collaborative research sharing approach.
Blind peer review
To understand open peer review fully, we’ll start by looking at its contrasting model: blind peer review.
Blind peer review means that there is some level of anonymity during the review process. The level of anonymity depends on the type of blind peer review being utilized. The two types of blind peer review are:
- Single-blind peer review: Author identities are known to the reviewers, but reviewer names are protected.
- Double-blind peer review: Reviewer and authors identities are not disclosed.
What is open peer review?
In contrast, open peer review removes anonymity for the sake of transparency. Open peer review is an umbrella term for the various open practices used during the peer review process. Examples of open peer review practices include:
- Open reports: The review process is made public along with the published research.
- Open identities: The identities of the author and reviewer are known to each other, and the reader.
- Open participation: The scientific community is encouraged to leave comments on research post-publication.
- Open interaction: Authors, reviewers, and other researchers are free to interact and discuss.
In the context of preprints, open peer review often happens after a manuscript is posted publicly. Researchers first share their findings on a preprint platform, such as Preprints.org, and then receive reviews from the community. Some organizations, such as eLife, support this approach through a Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model. This model allows a preprint to move from being “not peer reviewed” to “under review”. Review reports are published alongside the reviewed preprint to ensure transparency and provide readers with clear insight of the evaluation process.
Open peer review is sometimes known as transparent peer review. This leads us to the core principles of the model.
Core principles of open peer review
The three core principles of open peer review are transparency, accountability, and accessibility.
Transparency
Traditionally, academic publishing has prioritized closed-door evaluation models that keep review procedures hidden from authors and the public. In contrast, open peer review makes all aspects of the evaluation process open to everyone.
The openness of this model is democratic because it allows the wider scientific community to shape research through comments and feedback. There is also a certain level of trust established between all those involved in the publishing process, forgoing the need for useful information to be restricted.
Accountability
Published research and any accompanying review reports have a responsibility to the academic community. They must not be subject to misinformation or conflicts of interest in any circumstance so as to maintain the integrity of the academic ecosystem.
Revealing the identities of authors and reviewers to the public is a proactive measure that limits the risk of research-comprising occurrences in the final publication.
Accessibility
Open access has many benefits. One of these is the increased accessibility it affords by making research freely available to all. Similarly, open peer review wants to reveal to the public the evaluation process behind such research. By making the evaluation process accessible, it fosters a research environment where everyone is able to both understand and influence the research process.
Common applications of open peer review in scholarly publishing and preprint platforms
Now we know what open peer review is and its core principles, let’s look at a couple of examples of common applications of the model in scholarly publishing and preprint platforms.
One common application that we’ve already touched upon is community participation. For example, PubPeer allows post-publication comments on any of their research articles. Preprints.org also allows users to comment on their published preprints. Due to the in-progress nature of preprints, this feedback can be directly integrated into the manuscript.
Another application is the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model. Authors first make their articles publicly available as preprints, after which the manuscripts are formally reviewed by specialized services, such as eLife. The service providers then curate the articles on their platforms, combining editorial assessments with public review reports.
Open peer review can also be used to support community education. Making examples of peer review open to the community means that early career researchers unfamiliar with common practices can easily access training material.
Pros and cons of open peer review
Open peer review has many pros, but it also comes with cons to consider too. Let’s break these down.
Pros
- Promotes collaboration: By opening up research to constructive criticism beyond traditional peer review, both authors and readers can collaborate to improve the outcome of the research.
- Engages scholarly communities: Whereas traditional peer review limits research to the discussion of a select few experts, open peer review has the potential to engage entire communities by making the evaluation of certain topical papers a visible, communal event.
- Supports learning and development: Review reports being available alongside publications enables other scholars to learn from other examples before going through the peer review process themselves.
Cons
- Concerns over thoroughness: Since their review reports are accessible to all, reviewers may temper their criticisms for fear of being rebuked by the scientific community.
- Potential for biases: Reviewers may demonstrate bias for established researchers or papers covering popular topics.
- Smaller reviewer pools: Due to some academics being uncomfortable with being identified by name, there will be less reviewers willing to participate in open peer review.
If you’re a journal struggling to decide between which peer review model to employ, think about your journal’s own principles. Which peer review model best aligns with the vision of your journal and its readership?
Engaging with open review practices with Preprints.org
By publishing a preprint as an author, you benefit from your research being supported by a transparent and accessible model.
At Preprints.org, we empower researchers to freely and instantly share their work with a global audience, helping you gain early feedback, boost visibility, and accelerate discovery. Join over 350,000 researchers advancing open science on our accessible, multidisciplinary platform. Ready to submit? Upload your preprint today and make your work quickly discoverable.
Just exploring? Browse over 100,000 preprints across disciplines and stay ahead of the latest research.
