Open Peer Review
Open peer review is meant to increase transparency, accountability, and collaboration in the evaluation of research. Unlike traditional peer review, which is usually anonymous (single or double blind), open peer review makes the parts of the review process publicly visible: reviewers may sign their reports, the reports themselves may be published alongside the article, and in some cases, the full review discussion is openly accessible. This openness strengthens trust in scientific publishing by allowing readers to see not only the final result but also the reasoning and critique that shaped it. Additionally, it recognizes the intellectual contribution of reviewers, whose work often remains invisible and is also mostly unpaid. Traditional blind review was meant to make research more objective, yet it also creates a kind of ‘black box’ where readers are unaware of the changes made to the manuscript after reviewing and cannot know how the journal arrived at their publication decision. Open peer review, by contrast, offers a more democratic and constructive model of quality control in line with the broader goals of Open Science.
Today’s resource is the journal article “An Open Science Peer Review Oath” by Aleksic et al., which provides an overview of definitions, models, and practices of open peer review across disciplines. In their abstract, they state that “[p]eer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions.” We encourage you to have a look at the article and find out more about open peer review and its potential benefits!