Direct comparison
Open Peer Review Vs Traditional Peer Review: Key Differences & Comparison | CASRAI
Traditional peer review is confidential and anonymous; open peer review (OPR) covers a spectrum of practices that increase transparency by publishing reviewer identities, review reports, or editorial decisions. This comparison examines the key dimensions across which the two approaches differ, with examples from major journals.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Traditional peer review | Open peer review |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewer identity | Reviewers are anonymous; authors do not know who reviewed their work | Open-identity models require reviewers to sign reports; many OPR journals allow reviewers to choose whether to sign |
| Review reports published? | Reports are confidential and never disclosed publicly | In open-reports models (EMBO Transparent Review, eLife, F1000Research), full review texts are published alongside the article |
| Editorial decision published? | Decision letters are confidential between editor and author | EMBO Press journals publish the editor's decision letter; eLife publishes its editorial assessment for all submissions |
| Author response published? | Author rebuttals are part of the confidential editorial correspondence | In transparent review models, author responses to reviewers are published alongside the review reports and the final article |
| Timing of review | Review takes place between submission and publication; article only appears if accepted | Post-publication models (F1000Research, Wellcome Open Research) publish first, then conduct formal peer review; eLife publishes preprints with reviews regardless of outcome |
| Who can review? | Invited experts selected by the editor; typically two or three reviewers per manuscript | Open-participation models allow any qualified researcher to submit a review; most OPR journals still use invited review as the primary mechanism |
| Effect on reviewer willingness | Anonymity encourages frank assessment; some argue it also protects sloppy or biased reviewing | Studies (van Rooyen et al., JAMA 1999; BMJ open peer review trial) find modest reductions in reviewer acceptance when signing is required; quality effects are mixed |
| Common examples | Most subscription journals; Nature, Science, Cell (partially); all journals following standard double-anonymous review | eLife (from January 2023), EMBO Transparent Review, F1000Research, Wellcome Open Research, PeerJ (optional signing), Review Commons |
| COPE guidance | COPE guidance protects reviewer confidentiality as a default; editors must not disclose reviewer identities without consent | COPE guidance states that changes to confidentiality policy require clear communication to reviewers at point of invitation; reviewers can decline if they object |
Common questions
FAQ
Does open peer review improve review quality?+
The evidence is mixed. Studies comparing signed versus anonymous reviews (including a large RCT in the BMJ and a JAMA study by van Rooyen et al.) have found no consistent improvement in review quality from signing, but have found modest reductions in reviewer acceptance rates when signing is required. The open-reports trait may improve review quality by holding reviewers publicly accountable, but this has been studied less rigorously.
Which journals use open peer review?+
Notable examples include eLife (open assessments and reviews for all submissions from January 2023), EMBO Press journals (Transparent Review: open reports and decision letters for accepted articles), F1000Research (post-publication open review with signed reports), Wellcome Open Research and HRB Open Research (same model as F1000Research), and PeerJ (optional reviewer signing). ASAPbio maintains a database of journal peer review transparency policies.
Is open peer review mandatory for any type of journal?+
No funder or regulatory body currently mandates open peer review as a condition of publication. It is an editorial policy choice made by individual journals or publishers. Some funders, including Wellcome Trust, have expressed support for transparent review, but compliance is driven by journal adoption rather than funder mandate.
What is the difference between open review and post-publication peer review?+
Post-publication peer review (PPPR) is a specific form of open peer review in which articles are published first and formal review follows. F1000Research is the leading example. Open peer review is the broader category; PPPR is one variant of it. Most OPR models still conduct review before publication.
Going deeper
