Open peer review does not have clear definitions agreed upon as some consider it thedisclosure of the peer reviewer creating transparent relation between the scholars and theirpeers but others may broaden the term to also capacitate reader contribution to themanuscripts (Ford, 2013) . Although Open peer review may be broad and highly variable indefinition it still holds an important position in creating an open science community (Ross-Hellauer, 2017) (Schmidt, Ross-Hellauer, van Edig & Moylan, 2018). The problems come toSettle on a definite scheme and system for how the open peer review should be carried on(Schmidt, Ross-Hellauer, van Edig & Moylan, 2018). Different studies have been trying toinvestigate and establish a proper definition for the OPR principle. A systematic reviewconducted by Ross Hellauer on previous definitions showed that we can orient ourprecipitation of the OPR as an umbrella concept which carry 7 main elements that found to bein common between the different definitions which are open reports and open identities foundto be most common, open participation the next most common, open interaction andprereview of manuscripts as secondary elements, and finally fringe elements such as openfinal version commenting and open platform (Ross-Hellauer, 2017). Benefits of the OPR arehighly valuable for the openness of science and its quality. For example, A randomisedcontrol trial was performed to test the efficiency of the OPR, specifically the disclosure of thereviewers and author identity. The study showed significance in both low rejection ofmanuscript and the quality of the manuscript but it comes with the price of higher workloadand the study did not consider the reasons of the reviewers who refused to sign for the testgroup (Walsh, Rooney, Appleby & Wilkinson, 2000). The OPR efficiency is still challenged.For instance, a study in 2021 tested the problem of the same country reviewer and bias thatmay be introduced (Thelwall, Allen, Papas, Nyakoojo & Weigert, 2020). Another one testedif the sensitivity of the reviewer to competitions may affect the quality of the reviews whichshowed potential problems of the reviews quality (Bianchi & Squazzoni, 2022). But still thestudies that show negative impact are not critical or strongly proved and if it does in theupcoming years the modification of the schemes and definition wont possess a problem sinceas mentioned earlier the OPR has a broad spectrum of definition . As well as the OPR havean important role in reflecting on current traditional peer review methods and how to improvewhich indicate the importance of investigating the OPR and evaluating its importance(Teixeira da Silva, 2019).References:
● Bianchi, F., & Squazzoni, F. (2022). Can transparency undermine peer review? Asimulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review. Science And PublicPolicy. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac027
● Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of theLiterature. Journal Of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), 311-326. doi: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001
● Thelwall, M., Allen, L., Papas, E., Nyakoojo, Z., & Weigert, V. (2020). Does the useof open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias?Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishingmodel. Journal Of Information Science, 47(6), 809-820. doi:10.1177/0165551520938678
● Walsh, E., Rooney, M., Appleby, L., & Wilkinson, G. (2000). Open peer review: Arandomised controlled trial. British
Journal Of Psychiatry, 176(1), 47-51. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47● Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. (2018). Tenconsiderations for open peer review. F1000research, 7, 969. doi:10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
● Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review.F1000research, 6, 588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2● Teixeira da Silva, J. (2019). Challenges to open peer review. Online InformationReview, 43(2), 197-200. doi: 10.1108/oir-04-2018-0139