With the push toward increased transparency and open access continuing to grow in the scholarly publishing industry, the issue of open peer review is gaining more and more traction. That’s not to say that open peer review is a new concept. Open peer review has been discussed since the 1980s and journal societies such as the British Medical Journal and PLOS have already adopted this method of reviewing.
For years, blinded peer review has been the most common model, as reviewer anonymity allows these experts to provide more critical reviews without fear of repercussions. This is particularly relevant for early career scholars who are working to build up their reviewer resumes without angering their more senior colleagues. Some researchers, however, argue that blinded peer review can lead to reviews that are overly critical and lack details since anonymity can lead to less accountability.
The growing open science movement argues that open peer review can increase transparency while also providing an opportunity for reviewers to take credit for their review, thus increasing accountability. While questions about the quality of peer review continue to rage, multiple studies have been done comparing open peer review with closed peer review. These studies showed no significant difference in quality but did show that open peer review had improvements in other measurable aspects such as review length and comments on methodology. This is perhaps why open peer review has seen major growth in medical and scientific journals since 2017.
While the number of journals experimenting with open peer review has increased, many publishers are still cautious and have opted for hybrid models to experiment with the concept. For example, PeerJ created an optional open peer review journal in 2013 to complement its existing closed review models and found that over the last seven years 80% of authors have chosen to submit to this open review platform. While open peer review is growing in popularity, it still remains in the minority compared to traditional peer review. Eighty-one percent of open peer review journals are run by just five publishers. As the Plan S movement continues to put transparency at the forefront of publishing reform, it will be interesting to see whether open peer review gains more ground in the next few years.
Have you had experience working in open peer review and traditional peer review platforms? What differences have you noticed in the review quality? Let us know in the comments below.
