Transparent peer review pilot backed by authors and reviewers

A Taylor & Francis journal has revealed the results of a pilot to improve the transparency of peer review, a process which usually takes place behind the scenes. A survey two years into the trial has found that authors and reviewers are supportive of the transparent peer review model, believing it encourages better and fairer reviews as well as increased recognition of the vital service performed by reviewers.

The European Journal of Higher Education (EJHE)) announced it was trialing transparent peer review (TPR) in April 2023, making it the first higher education journal to adopt this approach. Under the TPR model, the full text of anonymous peer review reports is published alongside each article accepted for publication. EJHE's editors introduced the new approach to demonstrate the rigor of the journal's peer review and to provide useful insight for readers about the editorial decision-making process.

After operating TPR for two years, the results of a survey of EJHE authors and reviewers with experience of the process have been published.

The survey finds high levels of author satisfaction with the quality, speed and decision making under the TPR model. Forty percent of authors said that EJHE's peer review was better than other review processes they had experienced, and just 2% reported that it was worse. Authors particularly valued the constructive and supportive feedback they received, which helped improve their papers.

It is sometimes feared that making reviewer reports public might prevent reviewers from being as honest as they would otherwise. However, 86% of reviewers said that the fact their feedback was being published did not change their approach to writing the review.

Respondents were also asked whether their experience of TPR would influence their decision to write or review for the journal in the future. Seventy-three percent of authors reported that they were very likely to submit to EJHE again and only 8% said they were unlikely to do so. Although most reviewers said that TPR would not impact whether they reviewed again, as their decision is based on factors such as paper topic, there was a sizable proportion who said they would actively choose to review for EJHE because of their support for the model.

The full survey results report also reveals whether reviewers would prefer to have their names included in the published review; includes qualitative insights from written responses; and compares author and reviewer perceptions of transparent review before and after experiencing it.

"We have enjoyed working with the editors of EJHE to create a transparent peer review solution that demonstrates the value of their reviewer community and we are delighted by the positive outcomes of this trial demonstrated by the survey results," said Matthew Cannon, Associate Director of Open Science Programs at Taylor & Francis. "We are already planning to build on this success with transparency initiatives for more journals."

Cannon added, "Thank you to the EJHE editors, who have been great champions for transparent peer review, and to all the reviewers and authors who have embraced this innovative approach."

More information:
Read the survey results: Implementation and impact of transparent peer review

Provided by Taylor & Francis