Advanced
Search Tip
Operator Description Example
( ) Use Parentheses to override operator precedence. The expression inside the parentheses is executed first. ((Open access AND Trends) AND Global) NOT Policy
" " Search for Articles that exactly match the search keyword in " " "Global Open access Trends"
AND
(Capital letter)
Finds records containing all terms separated by the operator Open access AND Trends
OR
(Capital letter)
Finds records containing any of the terms separated by the operator Open access OR Trends
NOT
(Capital letter)
Excludes records containing certain words from your search (Open access AND Trends) NOT Policy
Basic
Search Tip
Operator Description Example
( ) Use Parentheses to override operator precedence. The expression inside the parentheses is executed first. ((Open access AND Trends) AND Global) NOT Policy
" " Search for Articles that exactly match the search keyword in " " "Global Open access Trends"
AND
(Capital letter)
Finds records containing all terms separated by the operator Open access AND Trends
OR
(Capital letter)
Finds records containing any of the terms separated by the operator Open access OR Trends
NOT
(Capital letter)
Excludes records containing certain words from your search (Open access AND Trends) NOT Policy
Reset Search

Open Peer Review

Peer Review

Peer review is an essential academic practice and system wherein expert researchers in a given field assess and validate submitted academic papers. It plays a critical role in the academic publishing process by objectively evaluating scientific findings.
Traditionally, the review of academic papers is conducted through Blind Peer Review, where authors remain unaware of the identities of the reviewers, and users also cannot access information about the review process.

Type of Peer Review

Single blind peer review Authors typically remain unaware of the identities of the reviewers, while the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities.
Double blind peer review Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities.
Triple blind peer review Both the authors and the reviewers are unaware of each other's identities, and the editorial board members also do not know the identities of the authors and reviewers.
Open peer review During or after the review process, both the authors' and the reviewers' identities are disclosed to all participants involved.
Editorial review An editorial board member performs the review of the paper.
Transparent peer review Upon publication, the review comments, author responses, and the editorial decision letter are typically published alongside the paper. Reviewers have the option to choose whether their identities are disclosed.
Collaborative peer review Two or more reviewers collaborate and submit a joint report, or authors revise the manuscript under the supervision of one or more reviewers.
Post publication peer review The review of published papers is conducted.
Cascading peer review For rejected papers, a review report is forwarded recommending a as a more suitable family journal.

Open Peer Review (OPR)

Open peer review (OPR) represents an alternative to traditional peer review, placing emphasis on transparency, openness, and participation in the review process of academic papers. It aims to cultivate a scholarly publishing environment, where authors, reviewers, and users engage in mutual communication about research by enabling anyone to access and view the peer review process of academic papers.

OPR involves the disclosure of the reviewing process and the information generated throughout. This includes the identities of reviewers and editors, review reports, author responses, manuscript versions, and more. The timing of disclosure varies, ranging from immediately after submission to the point of publication. Furthermore, the scope of disclosure can be categorized into ‘authors’ and ‘readers’.

Advantages and Values

Reliability
Enhances the quality of academic papers through objective and unbiased evaluation
Transparency
Enhances the reliability of journals and transparency of research by disclosing review results
Openness
Contributes to building an open and creative academic ecosystem by promoting discussion and feedbacks for researchers
Credit
Able to officially certify the peer review activities of reviewers since their identities are disclosed
Consistency
Enables the public disclosure and comparison of multiple reviewers' opinions on a particular paper, thereby improving sconsistency and reducing the risk of bias

Types and Cases

Open peer review is categorized into the following six types based on the approach:

01

Private
Open Peer Review

02

Unattributed
peer review

  • If reviewers agree, review reports are made public upon publication, but the names of the reviewers are not disclosed.
  • Instances: EMBO Journal
03

Optional
open peer review

  • It is similar to single-blind peer review where only reviewers know the authors' identities. If reviewers agree, however, their names and review reports are disclosed.
  • Instances: Peer J, Nature Communications
04

Pre-publication
open peer review

  • Reviewer identities are revealed to authors during the review process. When the accepted papers are published, in addition, all review histories are made public along with reviewer identities.
  • Instances: The BMJ, The medical BMC-series journals
05

Post-publication
open peer review

  • The review process occurs after the paper has been published. Regardless of the review outcome, reviewer names and review reports are always made public.
  • Instances: F1000Research, ScienceOpen, PubPub
06

Hybrid
open peer review

  • The review is conducted in a blind manner. If the author, reviewers, and editor-in-chief agree during the review process, upon publication of the paper, the specified review information (reviewer identities, review reports, author responses, manuscript versions, editorial board member identities) designated by the journal is made public.
  • Instances: ACOMS+

※ Unlike other cases, ‘ACOMS+’ is an academic paper submission & review system.

A hybrid open peer review model provided by ACOMS+

Hybrid Open Peer Review