Open peer review: bringing transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to the peer review process | Impact of Social Sciences

"To bring clarity to how the term is used, I analysed 122 separate definitions from the literature, identifying seven different key traits of OPR:

• Open identities – authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identity.
• Open reports – review reports are published alongside the relevant article.
• Open participation – the wider community are able to contribute to the review process.
• Open interaction – direct reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, and/or between reviewers, is allowed and encouraged.
• Open pre-review manuscripts – manuscripts are made immediately available (e.g. via preprint servers like arXiv) in advance of formal peer review procedures.
• Open final-version commenting – review or commenting on final “version of record” publications.
• Open platforms (“decoupled review”) – review is facilitated by a different organisational entity than the venue of publication.

A total of 22 unique configurations of these traits were found amongst the various definitions (i.e. 22 distinct definitions of OPR in the reviewed literature). Across all definitions, the core elements are open identities and open reports, with one or both elements present in over 95% of the definitions examined. Among the other elements, open participation is the next most common element, and should perhaps be considered a core trait in the social sciences and humanities (where it appears in more than 50% of definitions). Further secondary elements are open interaction and open pre-review manuscripts. Fringe elements include open final version commenting and open platforms...."