Extended definition
Open peer review (OPR) is the umbrella term for the variants of peer review that make a traditionally closed process transparent. Wolfram and colleagues (2020), in the first comprehensive survey of adoption, identified two axes that define the degree of transparency: open identities, where the reviewer’s name is revealed to the author or published alongside the article, and open reports, where the review reports and rebuttals are released next to the accepted work. Onto these two axes a set of related practices is layered: open community participation, open interaction among the parties, review of preprints, and post-publication commentary. The model emerged around 2001, with BioMed Central journals and Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, and grew rapidly after 2017. There is no single canonical format: each publisher combines the axes differently, which produces markedly different levels of transparency under the same label.
When it applies
Open peer review applies when the goal is accountability: tying the review to the public record makes the editorial decision auditable and exposes the reasoning behind acceptance or rejection. It applies well in fields with a strong open-science culture and in journals that want to give formal credit for reviewing, turning an invisible task into a citable contribution. The evidence supports its use. van Rooyen and colleagues (1999), in a classic randomized trial at the BMJ, showed that asking reviewers to identify themselves did not worsen review quality or change the recommendation. Bravo and colleagues (2019), analyzing a pilot across five journals, found that publishing reports did not compromise willingness to review, recommendations, or turnaround time. It applies, then, when one wants more transparency without sacrificing the rigor of the process.
When it does not apply
Open peer review does not apply indiscriminately. Opening identities carries a price: van Rooyen and colleagues (1999) recorded that reviewers asked to identify themselves declined the invitation more often, and Bravo and colleagues (2019) observed that only a minority chose to reveal their name when given the choice. In small communities, where few specialists know one another, open identity can inhibit frank criticism and expose the junior reviewer to retaliation from senior authors. It does not apply as a synonym for open reports: revealing the name and publishing the report are independent decisions, and treating them as one confuses the policy design. And it does not apply where transparency would replace, rather than complement, bias mitigation; in those cases double-blind review may be the more appropriate choice.
Applications by field
- Medicine and health sciences: the highest concentration of OPR journals; review history published alongside the accepted article, as in parts of the BMJ and BMC families.
- Natural sciences and physics: pioneering models of review over preprints with public discussion, as in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
- Life sciences: optional open reports with optional identity, the pattern adopted by large multidisciplinary publishers.
- Social sciences and humanities: more cautious uptake; the culture of small communities and sensitivity to retaliation limit the opening of identities.
Common pitfalls
The first pitfall is treating “open peer review” as a single concept, when it bundles independent axes that yield very different transparencies. The second is assuming that opening identity improves review quality; the evidence shows a null effect on quality and a real effect only on willingness to accept the invitation. The third is ignoring the power asymmetry: open identity weighs more on the junior reviewer than on the senior one, and designing the policy without safeguards penalizes those with least protection. The fourth is conflating open reports with mandatory publication of names, leaving the reviewer without the option to sign or stay anonymous. The fifth is publishing the review history without a persistent identifier, which prevents citation of the report and cancels the credit incentive that justifies much of the openness.