This is part two of a series of posts describing OpenAIRE’s work to find a community-endorsed definition of “open peer review” (OPR), its features and implementations. As described in Part One, OpenAIRE collected 122 definitions of “open review” or “open peer review” from the scientific literature. Iterative analysis of these definitions resulted in the identification of seven distinct OPR traits at work in various combinations amongst these definitions:
- 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 to 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 pre-print servers like ArXiv) in advance of any formal peer review procedures.
- Open final-version commenting: Review or commenting on final “version of record” publications
- Open platforms: Review is de-coupled from publishing in that it is facilitated by a different organizational entity than the venue of publication.
In this post, we will describe each of these OPR traits and their proposed advantages and disadvantages, with reference to evidence of their efficacy where available