Open Peer Review as a Tool for Improving Transparency and Quality of Scientific Evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2026.02.101Keywords:
traditional peer review, open peer review, open science, post-publication peer review, scientific communicationAbstract
The article elaborates on the transformation of the scientific peer review system amid the rapid development of open science and the introduction of new digital technologies into scientific communication. Open peer review is gradually gaining popularity among researchers and publishers, although the advantages of traditional blind peer review are still highly valued by the scientific community. The dynamic development of open peer review practices demonstrates the scientific community’s desire to adopt more responsible and participative evaluation mechanisms. It has been established that open peer review increases transparency in the scientific evaluation process, promotes a better understanding of research strengths and weaknesses, and builds trust in published results. The advantages of open peer review have been outlined, including increased transparency of the evaluation process, greater participant responsibility, more thorough and constructive evaluations, and involvement of a wide pool of experts from various disciplines and the public. The challenges and risks of implementing open peer review practices, including social biases, disciplinary differences, and ethical and practical considerations, are highlighted. It has been concluded that (i) the review process in the digital age does not finish with the article’s publication, but rather marks the beginning of the ongoing scientific discourse; (ii) certain elements of open peer review are usually perceived more positively in the format of open reports, whereas the disclosure of reviewers’ identities elicits greater skepticism; (iii) openness must be balanced with reviewers’ safety and fair criticism, particularly in hierarchical academic environments. Journals are encouraged to implement flexible open-review models that give authors and reviewers an opportunity to choose different review forms, and to monitor the dynamics of their choices. A phased, context-driven implementation of open models of scientific evaluation seems appropriate, taking into account disciplinary specifics and ensuring the protection of all participants in the peer review process.
References
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Tennant, J.P., Dugan, J.M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D.C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., et al. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E.C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7, 969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S.P.J.M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of open peer review. Research Evaluation, 33, rvae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004
Ervens, B., Carslaw, K., Koop, T., & Pöschl, U. (2025). Review of interactive open access publishing with community-based open peer review for improved scientific discourse and quality assurance. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 25, 13903— 13952. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13903-2025
Hendriks, F. (2026). Trust in science amid a replication crisis. Current Opinion in Psychology, 68, 102250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102250
Nixon, A. (2024). Reimagining the future of peer review: In the face of mounting challenges, is now the time to envision a new future for peer review? Chemistry International, 46 (1), 12—15. https://doi.org/10.1515/ci-2024-0104
Henriquez, T. (2023). Open peer review, pros and cons from the perspective of an early career researcher. MBIO, 14 (5), e01948-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01948-23
Rao, V., Payan, J., McCallum, A., & Shah, N.B. (2025). ML researchers support openness in peer review but are concerned about resubmission bias. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2511.23439. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.23439
Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Smith, R., & Black, N. (1998). Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA, 280 (3), 234—237. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.234
Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’ recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ, 318 (7175), 23—27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23
Van Rooyen, S., Delamothe, T., & Evans, S.J. (2010). Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 341, c5729. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5729
Fisher, M., Friedman, S.B., & Strauss, B. (1994). The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA, 272 (2), 143—146. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020069019
Ross, J.S., Gross, C.P., Desai, M.M., Hong, Y., Grant, A.O., Daniels, S.R., et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295 (14), 1675—1680. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1675
Mahoney, M.J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1 (2), 161— 175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
Travis, G.D., & Collins, H.M. (1991). New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Sci Technol Hum Val, 16 (3), 322—341. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600303
Budden, A.E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L.W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C.J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends Ecol Evol, 23 (1), 4—6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008
García, J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2016). Authors and reviewers who suffer from confirmatory bias. Scientometrics, 109 (2), 1377—1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2079-y
Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W.D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (51), 12708—12713. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114
Bykov, V., Spirin, O., Biloshytskyi, A., Kuchanskyi, O., Dikhtyarenko, O., & No vytskyi, O. (2020). Open digital systems in the evaluation of scientific and pedagogical research results. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 75 (1), 294—315. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v75i1.3589 [in Ukrainian].
Kremen, V.H., Lugovyi, V.I., Regeilo, I.Y., Bazelyuk, N.V., & Bazelyuk, O.V. (2020). Openness, digitalization, and evaluation in science: General and specific aspects for socio-humanitarian knowledge. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 80 (6), 243—266. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v80i6.4155 [in Ukrainian].
Kovalenko, V.V., & Yatsyshyn, A.V. (2024). The impact of open science on the evaluation of professional activities of scientific and academic staff. Perspectives and Innovations in Science (Series “Pedagogy”, Series “Psychology”, Series “Medicine”), 8 (42), 308—328. https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-4952-2024-8(42)-308-328 [in Ukrainian].
Paska, O.V., Kremen, Y.I., Hromovyk, B.P., & Lesyk, R.B. (2023). Experience in implementing a transparent system for evaluating researchers’ performance. Bulletin of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, 5 (1), https://doi.org/10.37472/v.naes.2023.5115 [in Ukrainian].
D’Andrea, R., & O’Dwyer, J.P. (2017). Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers? PLoS One, 12 (10), e0186111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186111
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS ONE, 5 (4). e10271. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271
Ford, E. (2013). Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44 (4), 311—326. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
Drozdz, J.A., & Ladomery, M.R. (2024). The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, 12054. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., & Nazarovets, S. (2022). The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38, 760—781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0
Rittman, M. (2025). Retraction Watch retractions now in the Crossref API. Blog. https://doi.org/10.13003/692016
Kowalczuk, M.K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S.L., Patel, J., & Moylan, C. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 5, e008707. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707
Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H.D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91 (3), 843—856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0569-5
Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2015). From manuscript evaluation to article valuation: The changing technologies of journal peer review. Human Studies, 38 (1), 57—79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9335-z
Warne, V. (2016). Rewarding reviewers — sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learned Publishing, 29 (1), 41—50. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1002
Dappert, A., Farquhar, A., Kotarski, R., & Hewlett, K. (2017). Connecting the persistent identifier ecosystem: Building the technical and human infrastructure for open research. Data Science Journal, 16, 28. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-028
Matsui, A., Chen, E., Wang, Y., & Ferrara, E. (2021). The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers. PeerJ, 9, e11999. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11999
Fiialka, S., Trishchuk, O., & Figol, N. (2020). Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientifi c texts: Organizational and ethical aspects. Knowledge and Performance Management, 4 (1), 26—36. https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.04(1).2020.03
Thelwall, M., Weigert, V., Allen, L., Nyakoojo, Z., & Papas, E.R. (2019). Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000 post-publication open peer review publishing model. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1911.03379. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03379 https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551520938678
Dall’Aglio, P. (2006). Peer review and journal models. arXiv:physics/0608307. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608307
O’Connor, E.E., Cousar, M., Lentini, J.A., Castillo, M., Halm, K., & Zeffiro, T.A. (2017). Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 38 (2), 230—235. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5017
Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2019). Challenges to open peer review. Online Information Review. Vol. 43, No. 2, 197—200. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2018-0139
Resnik, D.B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14 (3), 305—310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Akademperiodyka of the NAS of Ukraine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
