Ten considerations for open peer review

Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.

[1]  Martin Paul Eve,et al.  Open Peer Review , 2016 .

[2]  Tony Ross-Hellauer,et al.  What is open peer review? A systematic review , 2017, F1000Research.

[3]  Transparent peer review one year on , 2016, Nature communications.

[4]  Maria Victoria Schneider,et al.  An Open Science Peer Review Oath , 2014, F1000Research.

[5]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[6]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Bias in peer review , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Richard Smith,et al.  Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[8]  Erin Hengel,et al.  Publishing while Female. Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review. , 2017 .

[9]  Richard Smith,et al.  Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006 .

[10]  F. Godlee,et al.  Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial , 1999, BMJ.

[11]  F. Dudbridge,et al.  Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models , 2015, BMJ Open.

[12]  Birgit Schmidt,et al.  Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers , 2017, PloS one.

[13]  D. Davidson.  Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation , 1984 .

[14]  F. Godlee.  Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. , 2002, JAMA.

[15]  Blair R. Tormey,et al.  Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous , 2016, 1602.01393.

[16]  Verity Warne,et al.  Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained , 2016, Learn. Publ..

[17]  Maria Victoria Schneider,et al.  The open science peer review oath. , 2014, F1000Research.

[18]  Jelte M. Wicherts,et al.  Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals , 2016, PloS one.

[19]  R Smith,et al.  Opening up BMJ peer review , 1999, BMJ.

[20]  Richard Smith,et al.  Pros and cons of open peer review , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  Mark Ware,et al.  Peer review in scholarly journals: Perspective of the scholarly community - Results from an international study , 2008, Inf. Serv. Use.