Experiment in open peer review for books suggests increased fairness and transparency in feedback process. | Impact of Social Sciences

"Peer review is at the heart of academic publishing, a stamp of quality for scholarly research. But while publishing has evolved and adapted to the digital landscape, peer review remains stuck in its traditional format. Last month, in reaction to feedback from our authors and in the spirit of exploring opportunities to improve the peer review process, we launched an open review trial for academic books. We’ve placed selected book proposals and associated sample chapters on a website and are inviting comment from anyone who feels they can contribute to their development – so they needn’t necessarily be an academic, and nor do they have to work in the same research areas or even discipline. The trial runs until March 7. Experimentation with open peer review began first in journals as digital publishing took hold, ten and fifteen years ago. Open review is now an established part of the evaluation process for several prominent journals (see BMC-series medical journals and the BMJ) and has been growing in popularity with the advent of open access publishing.  With academic debate increasingly taking place online, now seems the right time to experiment with open review for books. We’re also responding to the research community: over two-thirds of the authors we surveyed last year told us they thought publishers should be experimenting with alternative peer review methods. Responses indicated that rather than this interest being driven by dissatisfaction with existing peer review methods, it was inspired by curiosity in what new approaches might offer. We want to provoke debate about the pros and cons of open review, and are keen to hear academics’ views. At the end of the trial we’ll report on participants’ experiences, and on the feedback we’ve received. There are typically two stages to monograph peer review: the proposal and sample chapters are sent for review before a book is contracted, and on completion the full manuscript is usually reviewed before being approved for publication.  There have only been a tiny number of experiments in open review for scholarly books, and these have explored open commenting on full manuscripts.  We thought it was worth exploring whether there might be value to offering it earlier in the writing process. There are many forms of open peer review, from simply making reviewers’ names public, to publishing traditional review reports alongside works. We chose to do both of these, while also using an interactive version which enables authors to respond to commentators, because  our authors told us they wanted peer review to have more emphasis on developing work rather than simply gatekeeping. Interactive open peer review has some obvious benefits, including the possibility of feedback from a wider range of perspectives, maybe even from expert practitioners and policy-makers; the chance for open discussion between authors and reviewers; and a reduced chance of bias since reviewers’ identities and comments are public. So far, we’ve been really pleased with the reaction and buzz around the project. We’ve had comments from those experienced, and also less experienced, with the peer review process. Some authors have even asked for their works to be reviewed openly in future! One criticism we have received is that there is too little incentive for peer reviewers. We’re interested to hear whether people concur with this criticism, along with any ideas they may have to overcome this. For example, one approach employed by some journals, such as those published by Frontiers, is to name reviewers on the final version of the article, so that their contribution is recognised ..."