Debunking 3 open peer review myths
| 11 May, 2022 | Abbie nicholson |
In Ireland and globally, open research trends and practices continue to gain momentum and popularity in the research community. But there’s one area that is commonly misunderstood: open peer review.
How can researchers separate fact from fiction when it comes to open peer review? In this blog, we debunk three open peer review myths and explore how our progressive publishing model benefits everyone, from readers to researchers.
Before we get into the myths – what exactly is open peer review?
‘Open peer review’ refers to the various possible modifications of traditional single- or double-blind peer review that contribute to a more transparent process, typically through either open identities or open reports. Open peer review is considered a more progressive approach than traditional models. Arguably, increased transparency in the peer review process leads to a greater understanding of the published research and
and more constructive peer reviews.
Like traditional peer review models, open peer review is a crucial pillar of research communication. Scholars, scientists, and the public rely on peer review to uphold research integrity and ensure that published research is valid and trustworthy. That’s why at HRB Open Research, peer reviewers are formally invited to review papers. Reviewer names and affiliations are also published alongside their reports on the Platform, meaning the whole process is fully transparent. We believe this leads to higher quality reviews, and a more constructive, collaborative conversation within the research community.
Given so many variations of open peer review exist, it’s unsurprising that a few myths have started circulating about this misunderstood open research principle. Here we examine three common misconceptions of open peer review…
Myth #1: Open peer review is less rigorous than closed peer review
The first myth to be debunked is that open peer review isn’t as rigorous as closed peer review, resulting in lesser quality research. This stems from the idea that open peer review can feel less formal because, in some models, anyone can submit peer review reports.
Reality: HRB Open Research immediately addresses this by using a formal, invited peer review process. Reviewers are invited by our in-house team based on their expertise in the required field and must meet certain criteria to be eligible.
In fact, we find open peer review reports are often more valuable for researchers when compared to closed peer review reports – perhaps because reviewers know anyone can see their feedback. Due to this, authors often receive a more considered, rigorous review, with constructive suggestions for improvements to increase the quality of their research.
Myth #2: Reviewers don’t want their names published in their reports
The second myth on our list is the belief that reviewers prefer to review research anonymously. Some say that in peer review models with open identities, reviewers could find it difficult to challenge research authored by more senior or established researchers in their field. As a result, some worry reviewers are less likely to interrogate research with the same scrutiny seen in closed peer review.
Reality: At HRB Open Research, we give credit where it’s due. By sharing reviewer names, peer reviewers receive the recognition they deserve for their work – and feedback shows reviewers enjoy receiving this open recognition and credit for their efforts.
The transparency in our open peer review model also helps to ensure that research is reviewed without bias, by holding reviewers accountable for their feedback. We also ask all authors and reviewers to submit a statement disclosing any competing interests, which helps to ensure the robustness of the process.
Myth #3: Open peer review only benefits readers, not authors
The final myth on our list is that it’s only readers who benefit from transparent peer review. While it is true that freely accessible reviewer reports are valuable for readers, some are less clear on the rewards for others.
Reality: The open peer review model used on HRB Open Research is beneficial for all stakeholders in the research ecosystem – from reviewers, to authors, readers, and beyond.
For example, authors benefit from open peer review because they can read the full reviewer report and reply to the reviewer with comments publicly when they submit a revision. By opening communication between reviewers and authors open peer review becomes more conversational and collaborative. It also helps authors to better understand the reviewer’s point of view, which can be challenging in closed models of peer review where reports are not always shared fully with authors.
Openly accessible reviewer reports also help readers to better understand the value of research. By being able to freely view full reports, all versions of the articles published, and reviewer and author comments, readers can better contextualise the research. This in turn, could also lead to increasing its potential impact.
Furthermore, the wider research community learns from the insights and limitations drawn from openly accessible reviewer reports. Due to this, open peer review becomes an educational tool. This is particularly useful for early career researchers (ECRs) looking to improve their own research or become a peer reviewer.
HRB Open Research authors and early career researchers Elaine Toomey and Ksenija Zečević relished seeking transparent feedback through open peer review. They noted: “We believe being open offers great opportunities for collaboration and the possibility to get input on how to improve your work, as ours improved with the constructive comments from our peer-reviewers.”
As you can see, there are many reasons for getting involved in the open peer review process for authors and reviewers alike. We’re firm believers that increased transparency in the peer review process leads to a better understanding of published research, more constructive peer reviews, and well-deserved credit for the reviewer, to list just a few of the benefits.
Interested in reviewing for HRB Open Research? Read more about our peer review process or view our reviewer guidelines.