The Future is Open – Why a transparent peer review policy is worth our consideration
By Dr. Julie Svalastog and Philip Shaw
Transparent peer review, where the exchanges between peer reviewers and authors accompany published articles, continues to be both lauded and critiqued by the scholarly community. Together with managing editor of Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease (TAR), Phillip Shaw, I discuss the possibilities and limitations brought by a switch to transparent peer review, how increased transparency may help us in improving the author experience and help abate increasing issues of trust in scholarly results.
For the proponents of transparent peer review the benefits are multiple. Whereas in anonymous peer review the work of the reviewer is reserved for the editor and author alone, publishing reviewer reports allows for questions, suggestions and advice to reach other researchers in the field. Openly publishing the exchanges between reviewers and authors helps the quality control of review reports as well as encouraging a wider usage and dissemination of the comments and ideas coming from reviewers as part of the revision process.
The hope is that increased transparency will offer long-term benefits of a more practical nature as well: The lack of available reviewers is a well-known bottle-neck in the publication process and increased recognition for reviewing as part of career progression is a possible solution. Increased transparency allows credit to go to dedicated reviewers, and increases recognition of the reviewer role as a corner stone of the scientific ecosystem. This is challenging to achieve when reviews remain anonymous and available for the author alone. Important additional arguments for increased transparency include its potential to help unveil biases - conscious and unconscious, unfair reviewer reports, unwanted tone and language, conflicts of interests, and unfair advantages.
When asking Phillip Shaw, as managing editor of Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease (TAR), about the decision to adapt an open peer review policy for the journal in January 2019, he emphasizes increased recognition for reviewers and more quality reviews being among the main motivations. He also notes how open access publishing has created a more confusing publication landscape for authors. As new journals appear online every day, some trustworthy and others less so, and as the pressure increases to publish content at ever higher speed, how are authors supposed to know what they will get from their journal of choice? “Our prospective authors should be able to see what TAR can provide them, and that we will take their research seriously. It is also important that our readers know that our content gets thorough consideration by experts and to show what the reviewer has added to the process. We publish a good amount of pharma-funded research – there is a benefit to us (and to science) of showing this is also rigorously reviewed. Lastly, assuring quality peer review takes time, with open reports readers and authors can get a better understanding of where and how that time was spent.”
The latter issue is of increasing importance as 2020 has turned out to be a year like no other. The impact of COVID-19 has been palpable to TAR, which, as an open access journal with a focus on pioneering studies in respiratory diseases, has seen a sharp increase in COVID-19 related content. The global explosion in the interest for COVID research has been exacerbated by a general waiver of publication costs for such content, and as a result questionable scientific results have reached further with, at times, harmful effects. Political and economic agendas, falsified research, and misleading reports from news outlets and social media have undermined real scientific knowledge and led to doubt and confusion in the general public about the best ways to protect oneself from serious illness.
In the case of TAR, readers can audit every step of the revision process for all of the journal’s COVID related content, and Shaw encourages other scientific publications to consider following suit: “There’s been quite a lot of COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to TAR – and they are of variable quality. As the pandemic spread, it was urgent to get preliminary results out to clinical personnel, and there have been retractions of COVID-19 research from other journals– by publishing the referee reports, we are able to show to the world the quality and robustness of our peer review process.”
A transparent peer review process has its limitations, however. The break with established practice and the loss of confidentiality between author and reviewers is not welcome everywhere. Others question the relevance of reviewer reports for anyone beyond the authors. Some reviewers were concerned about the time they would need to spend on a review they knew would be published and openly accessible. Others were concerned about anonymity. In the case of TAR, it was decided the reviewers can choose whether they wish to sign their reviews or not. Shaw explains, “There is reluctance from some reviewers to say what they mean if they think they may be identifiable. Some research field are small and everyone knows everyone else; if we’re aiming for high quality reviews, we should be homing in on researchers in the exact same niche field as the authors, which may make it uncomfortable for the reviewers. Especially if they are thinking of their career prospects.” Such concerns are valid and must be considered carefully, though the question of whether the remedy should be sought through change in the culture of the research community itself, rather than in continued anonymization, is still being debated.
Changes are happening in the scholarly community’s approach to transparency, however, as a recent enquiry into the views of TAR’s readership suggests: A positive view of transparent peer review stands stronger among younger researchers than among those in more established phases of their careers, suggesting that tomorrow’s researchers are more welcoming of a transparent review process. Demand for transparency is growing across sectors, and is likely to keep doing so as issues of trust continue to pose challenges.
In 2020, tumultuous global change and increased insecurity have met with a pressing need for a coherent scientific response. As outlets for scientific research and top expertise in fields that become more vital by the day, we have a responsibility to consider all the ways we can help authors produce quality research. Increased transparency in the review process represents one such way, and as the need for trust in science and by extension in peer review grows in importance, it is therefore worth our consideration.
About the Authors
