Ten considerations for open peer review

F1000Res. 2018 Jun 29:7:969. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15334.1. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: good practice; open peer review; open science; research integrity.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Authorship*
  • Editorial Policies*
  • Humans
  • Peer Review, Research*

Grants and funding

Parts of this work were funded by the European Commission H2020 projects OpenUP (Grant agreement 710722, Call: H2020-GARRI-2015-1) and OpenAIRE2020 (Grant agreement: 643410, Call: H2020-EINFRA-2014-1). TRH is Senior Researcher at Know-Center GmbH, Graz, Austria. The Know-Center is funded within the Austrian COMET program—Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies – under the auspices of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, and the State of Styria. COMET is managed by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency FFG.