Explainer · Plain-language

Open Peer Review: Definition, Meaning & Examples | CASRAI

Open peer review (OPR) is an umbrella term for a range of adaptations to traditional peer review that increase transparency by opening reviewer identities, review reports, editorial decisions, or the participation process to a wider audience. Rather than a single model, OPR encompasses a spectrum of practices whose defining common thread is greater openness than conventional closed, anonymous review.

CASRAI plain-language explainers — clear answers to recurring research-administration questions

The step most authors miss

Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.

A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.

Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.

The Ross-Hellauer typology and why definitions matter

Because "open peer review" has been used to mean radically different things — from simply signing a review to fully public post-publication commentary — Ross-Hellauer's 2017 systematic review (published in F1000Research, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2) analysed 122 definitions to produce a structured typology. The seven traits it identifies are not mutually exclusive and do not form a hierarchy: a journal can publish open reports without requiring open identities, or can enable open participation without disclosing editorial decisions. This matters practically because the evidence base on the effects of OPR is trait-specific. For example, the evidence on whether signed reviews improve review quality is mixed; some studies suggest signing reduces reviewer willingness to be critical, whilst others find no significant effect. ASAPbio has produced a detailed transparency audit of peer review policies across major biology journals.

Journal models in practice

Journals implement open peer review in diverse ways. eLife changed its model significantly from January 2023: it now publishes all reviewed preprints with the accompanying eLife Assessment, public reviews, and author responses, regardless of the editorial outcome — meaning rejection no longer keeps reviews private. EMBO Press journals implement Transparent Review: referee reports, author rebuttals, and the editor's decision letter are published alongside accepted articles, with editors signing their communication and reviewers having the option to sign. F1000Research operates a post-publication peer review model: articles are published immediately after a basic editorial check, and formal peer review — which is open and signed — takes place after publication. PeerJ offers authors the option to publish their review histories.

Evidence on reviewer willingness and review quality

One of the most frequently raised concerns about open peer review is whether requiring reviewers to sign their reports will deter participation or reduce critical engagement. A large-scale randomised controlled trial conducted by van Rooyen et al. (1999, JAMA) found that asking reviewers to sign their reports had no significant effect on review quality but did modestly reduce reviewer acceptance rates. A more recent study of BMJ open peer review found similar results. These findings suggest that the participation effect is real but relatively small for established researchers, whilst early-career researchers — who may be more vulnerable to retaliation from authors — consistently report greater reluctance to sign reviews. ASAPbio's Publish Your Reviews initiative aims to normalise the publication of review reports even where reviewer identities remain anonymous.

Open peer review and preprints

The growth of preprint posting in biomedical research has created new forms of open peer review formally decoupled from journal submission. Review Commons, a platform run by EMBO in partnership with ASAPbio, provides independent, journal-agnostic peer review of preprints: authors submit to Review Commons, receive reviews from expert referees, and can then submit the revised manuscript — together with the review reports and their responses — to any of 18 affiliated journals. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) has published guidance on reviewer confidentiality relevant to journals implementing OPR, noting that any change to a journal's confidentiality policy requires clear communication to reviewers at the point of invitation.

Key facts

At a glance

Typology: Ross-Hellauer (2017), F1000Research — identifies 7 distinct traits of open peer review
eLife model (from January 2023): Publishes all reviewed preprints with assessments and reviews, regardless of outcome
EMBO Transparent Review: Referee reports, author rebuttals, and decision letters published with accepted articles
F1000Research: Post-publication model; reviews published with reviewer names and DOI assigned to each report
Review Commons: EMBO + ASAPbio platform for journal-agnostic peer review of preprints
ASAPbio: Produces transparency audit of peer review policies in biology journals; runs Publish Your Reviews initiative

Common misconceptions

What people often get wrong

Often heard: Open peer review always means reviewers must use their real names.

Actually: Signed (open-identity) review is only one of seven traits in the Ross-Hellauer typology. Many journals publish open reports — the full review text — while still allowing reviewers to remain anonymous if they choose.

Often heard: Open peer review takes place before publication.

Actually: Post-publication peer review — as used by F1000Research, Wellcome Open Research, and HRB Open Research — is itself a form of OPR. Articles are published first, and formal review follows, with all reports published alongside the article.

Often heard: Open peer review is mainly used by open-access journals.

Actually: Some subscription journals, including EMBO Press titles, implement transparent review. The distinction between OA and subscription publishing does not map cleanly onto open versus closed peer review.

Going deeper