Openness and Transparency in Peer Review

Peer review is recognized as a fundamental part of the scholarly communication ecosystem. With the current push for increased transparency and openness in science, new ways of organizing and documenting the peer review process are emerging. Some argue that the traditional practice of ‘double blind’ peer review favours already privileged scholars from well-esteemed institutions in North America and Europe. Mechanisms preventing less privileged groups, including scholars from low- and middle-income countries in the global south, from publishing their papers in high impact journals should be combatted. One way of levelling the field, it is argued, is to promote various forms of open peer review. Another push for openness and transparency stems from debates regarding reform of research assessment. Peer review is a fundamental contribution to research that should be appreciated when evaluating the CV of a researcher. More streamlined ways of documenting peer review will be welcomed by such reformists. Finally, cases of misconduct, such as peer reviewers asking for citation of their own papers for the sole reason of boosting their number of citations, will be easier to detect if the identity of the reviewer is revealed along with the published paper. The session will begin with four lightning talks (6–7 minutes each), in which representatives of PREreview, eLife, Reviewer Credits, and PLOS share their experiences with different ways of promoting and facilitating more transparency in peer review. After the lightning talks, there will be a panel discussion chaired by Roald A. Øien, full professor of Special Education and Developmental Psychology at UiT and adjunct assistant professor at the Child Study Center at Yale University’s School of Medicine. Øien is part of the editorial team for the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders and teaches peer review to early career researchers. Watch the panel on this video recording. Vanessa Fairhurst, Head of Community, PREreview: “Why we need greater equity and transparency in peer review.” Naushin Thomson, Senior Production Assistant, eLife:“Learnings from a publishing model focussed on preprint review and curation.” Sven Fund, Managing Director, Reviewer Credits:“Ensuring Peer Review is a Force for Good in Open Science.” Rebecca Kirk, Associate Editorial Director, PLOS:“Open Science in Practice: The Evolution and Impact of Published Peer Review History.”