The document summarizes a pilot study on researchers' perceptions of open peer review (OPR) in the era of open science. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven STEM faculty and researchers. The interviews explored participants' awareness and views of OPR, willingness to publish peer review reports and sign reviews, and opinions on shifting from blind to open peer review. While some were open to OPR, others had concerns about transparency. Due to the small sample size, no definitive conclusions could be drawn, but future larger studies are needed to understand adoption of OPR across fields.

1. Manasa Rath
Rutgers University, New Brunswick
manasarath@gmail.com
Peer Review: The Process &
Products
Open Peer Review (OPR) in the Era of Open Science:
A Pilot Study of Researchers' Perceptions
Peiling Wang
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
peilingw@utk.edu
Introduction
Method
Semi-structured interviews & content analysis
• seven participants (STEM faculty and researchers with at least
150 citations)
• lasted for 25-40 minutes
• Four Main questions-
o Have you heard of OPR? Do you know any OPR journals
in your discipline?
o As an author, would you publish peer review reports
alongside the accepted paper?
o As a reviewer, would you sign your reports so that authors
know your identity?
o What are your views towards the potential shifting from
the current blind peer review to open peer review?
Peer review: Merits and Flaws
Merits
• quality assurance standard in scientific inquiry
• cornerstones of scholarly publishing
Flaws
• Inordinate delay in publishing
• Flawed process in many OA journals
Bohannon (2013), McCook (2006), Rennie (2016),
Smith (2006) call for transparency and openness as
alternative to blind peer review
Open Peer Review: innovation or renovation?
Peer Review
Submission
Peer Review
History
Published
Article
Original
& Revisions
Referee Reports
Decision
Rebuttal
Results & Discussion
References
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342, 60-65
(2013)
McCook, A. (2006). Is peer review broken? ... What's wrong with peer
review? The Scientist, 20(2), 26-35.
Rennie, D. (2016). Make peer review scientific. Nature, 535 (July 7),
31–33.
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science
and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178-
182.
• Majority of the participants, except one, have not heard about
OPR
• None has published in OPR journals
• Many complained problems of current review systems:
o long delays
o reviewers demand on unreasonable changes
o rivals publishing in same research areas
• Mixed feelings about opening blind peer-review process
o some show positive attitude towards OPR
o others are concerns about backfire
• No conclusion can be drawn from the study given the small
number of participants
• Future studies are needed
o identify the factors influencing scientists’ willingness to
accept or adopt OPR
o survey from larger samples in different STEM fields to
predict earlier adopters
O P R
Single-blind
Double-blind
Open Access to
include peer
review history?