Peer review · open models

Open peer review: what it means, who uses it, and what the trials found

One term, 122 definitions. The seven traits behind them, the journals that sign or publish reviews, and the randomised trials that measured what changes.

Who uses which modelThe trials
Sources captured 13 September 2026 · 17 references
Key takeaways
  • "Open peer review" has 122 definitions in the literature, 22 configurations of seven traits.[1]
  • Three traits cover 99% of definitions: open identities (90.1%), open reports (59.0%), open participation (about a third).[1]
  • Signing reviews did not change quality in two BMJ trials[2][4]; in a psychiatry trial signed reviews were better and more courteous.[3]
  • Costs: 12% more reviewers declined when asked to be identified[2]; reviews took 25 minutes longer when they might be posted.[4]
  • Publishing reports across five Elsevier journals did not reduce willingness to review; 8.1% of referees revealed their names.[5]
  • 60.3% of 3,062 surveyed researchers want open review to be mainstream; more than half oppose revealing reviewer identities to authors.[7]
Definition

Seven traits, one umbrella.

Ross-Hellauer's 2017 systematic review of 122 definitions; trait wording and shares quoted from the paper.

The proposed definition: "an umbrella term for a number of overlapping ways that peer review models can be adapted in line with the aims of Open Science, including making reviewer and author identities open, publishing review reports and enabling greater participation in the peer review process".[1]

TraitMeaning (quoted)Share of definitions
Open identitiesAuthors and reviewers are aware of each other's identity90.1%
Open reportsReview reports are published alongside the relevant article59.0%
Open participationThe wider community are able to contribute to the review processabout a third
Open pre-review manuscriptsManuscripts are made immediately available in advance of any formal peer review23.8%
Open interactionDirect reciprocal discussion between author(s) and reviewers, and/or between reviewers20.5%
Open final-version commentingReview or commenting on final version-of-record publicationsoutlier
Open platformsReview is facilitated by a different organizational entity than the venue of publicationoutlier
Who uses which model

Journals and platforms, in their own words.

Policy pages captured 13 September 2026; the BMJ and Elsevier rows are from the trials run at those journals.
Journal / platformWhat is openStated policy
Nature PortfolioOpen reports (transparent peer review)"elements of the peer-review process are published alongside the article", which "may include reviewer comments to the authors, author rebuttal letters and, where applicable, editorial decision letters"; opt-in at some journals, default at others.[10] Nature Communications, first year: "around 60% of our authors are voluntarily opting in" across 787 papers.[6]
PLOS ONEOpen reports, optional; identities optionalAuthors may publish the history: "the complete editorial decision letter for each revision, with reviews, and your responses to reviewer comments". "If the peer reviewers have chosen to sign their reviews, their names will also appear."[11]
eLifeOpen reports, publish-then-review"there is no accept or reject decision after peer review: rather, every article we review is published as a Reviewed Preprint", which "includes the preprint itself, the eLife Assessment, Public Reviews".[12]
F1000ResearchOpen identities, open reports, open participation, publish-then-review"the article is published within a week"; "reports and names are published alongside the article, together with the authors' responses and comments from registered users".[13]
PeerJOpen reports; identities optional"single anonymized peer review"; "Reviewers have the option to make their identities known to the authors"; "Full content of the reviewer reports is published".[14]
FrontiersOpen identities on publication; open interaction"The names of reviewers and editors appear on published articles"; authors and reviewers "engage in a direct online dialogue".[15]
The BMJOpen identities (signed reviews)The journal's normal procedure in its 2010 trial: the reviewer's signed report "made available only to the author"; the trial tested posting signed reports on the website.[4]
Elsevier pilot, five journalsOpen reports; identities optional9,220 submissions and 18,525 reviews, 2010–2017; "Only 8.1% of referees agreed to reveal their identity in the published report."[5]
The trials

What changes when review is open.

Randomised trials and a five-journal before-and-after study; figures quoted from the abstracts.
StudyWhat was testedWhat was found
BMJ 1999[2]Reviewers randomised to be identified to authors or to stay anonymous; 125 manuscriptsNo difference in quality (3.06 vs 3.09 on a 1–5 scale), recommendation or time. Identified reviewers 12% more likely to decline (35% vs 23%). Most authors favoured open review.
Br J Psychiatry 2000[3]408 manuscripts randomised to signed or unsigned reviews76% of reviewers agreed to sign. Signed reviews were of higher quality, more courteous, took longer, and were more likely to recommend publication.
BMJ 2010[4]Reviewers told their signed review might be posted online; 471 manuscripts, 12 editorsNo difference in quality (editors 0.04, authors 0.06 on a 1–5 scale). 55% of 1,039 reviewers approached declined. Reviews took 25 minutes longer.
Nature Communications 2019[5]Publishing reports at five Elsevier journals; 18,525 reviews, 2010–2017Willingness to review, recommendations and turnaround did not fall. 8.1% of referees revealed their identity. Younger and non-academic referees more willing; male referees wrote more constructive reports.
PLOS One 2017 survey[7]3,062 editors, authors and reviewers, 201660.3% say open review should be mainstream; 76.2% have taken part in some form. Support for open reports and interaction; more than half say open identities would make review worse.
Publons 2018 survey[8]Reviewers' willingness to accept invitations by journal model"reviewers seem more likely to accept review invitations from journals using single-, double-, and triple-blind peer review models, than any of the open peer review variants". Single-blind: 73% likely or very likely; open identities: 31%.
Sense about Science 2019[9]Authors' willingness to submit where the reviewer's name appears next to the article (2016 report cited)"in 2011, 45 percent were in favor; by 2015, this had risen to 52 percent".
Reviewing openly

If your review will carry your name.

  • Check the journal's policy first. The Principles of Transparency require every journal to state whether reviews are posted and whether they are signed.[16] COPE lists identifiability (double-anonymous, single-anonymous, open) as one dimension of any review model.[17]
  • Substantiate every comment. Signed reviews in the psychiatry trial were rated higher quality and more courteous.[3] Tone and evidence are what a published report is judged on.
  • Budget the time. Reviews that might be posted took 25 minutes longer.[4]
  • Use a method. The steps are in how to peer review a paper, including how to write the report.
For authors

When the review record follows the paper.

Two things to know before you submit

At journals with published reports, the reviews stay attached to the article. Opt-in is often yours to make (about 60% of Nature Communications authors said yes[6]), and the policy page must say whether reports are posted and signed.[16] Problems fixed before submission never appear in that record.

Protected by Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention
Your manuscript is never stored, logged, or used for training.
FAQ

Questions, answered.

Don't see yours? Email us — we read every one.

Sources

References and sources

Every figure on this page is quoted from the primary source listed here. Verification dates are recorded per source.
  1. [1]Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research 2017;6:588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 PMID 28580134.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC record + open-access full text) · verified 2026-09-13
  2. [2]van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318:23-27. doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23 PMID 9872878.randomised trial (Europe PMC record) · verified 2026-09-13
  3. [3]Walsh E, Rooney M, Appleby L, Wilkinson G. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2000. doi:10.1192/bjp.176.1.47 PMID 10789326.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC record) · verified 2026-09-12
  4. [4]van Rooyen S, Delamothe T, Evans SJ. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010;341:c5729. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5729 PMID 21081600.randomised trial (Europe PMC record) · verified 2026-09-13
  5. [5]Bravo G, Grimaldo F, López-Iñesta E, Mehmani B, Squazzoni F. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Nature Communications 2019;10:322. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2 PMID 30659186.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC record) · verified 2026-09-13
  6. [6]Nature Communications. Transparent peer review one year on. Nat Commun 2016;7:13626. doi:10.1038/ncomms13626 PMID 27830710.journal editorial (Europe PMC open-access full text) · verified 2026-09-13
  7. [7]Ross-Hellauer T, Deppe A, Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS One 2017;12(12):e0189311. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189311 PMID 29236721.peer-reviewed survey (Europe PMC record) · verified 2026-09-13
  8. [8]Publons. 2018 Global State of Peer Review. Clarivate Analytics; 2018. publons.com/static/Publons-Global-State-Of-Peer-Review-2018.pdfindustry report (PDF on file) · verified 2026-09-12
  9. [9]Elsevier and Sense about Science. Quality, trust & peer review: researchers' perspectives 10 years on. September 2019. senseaboutscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Quality-trust-peer-review.pdfsurvey report (PDF on file) · verified 2026-09-12
  10. [10]Nature Portfolio. Editorial policies: peer review (transparent peer review). Captured 13 September 2026. www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/peer-reviewpublisher policy page · verified 2026-09-13
  11. [11]PLOS ONE. Editorial and peer review process (published peer review history). Captured 13 September 2026. journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-processjournal policy page · verified 2026-09-13
  12. [12]eLife. Peer review: the eLife model (Reviewed Preprints). Captured 13 September 2026. elifesciences.org/about/peer-reviewjournal policy page · verified 2026-09-13
  13. [13]F1000Research. How it works: open peer review and indexing. Captured 13 September 2026. f1000research.com/aboutpublisher policy page · verified 2026-09-13
  14. [14]PeerJ. Journal policies and procedures: open peer review (STM peer review taxonomy statement). Captured 13 September 2026. peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/journal policy page · verified 2026-09-13
  15. [15]Frontiers. The Frontiers review system. Captured 13 September 2026. www.frontiersin.org/about/review-systempublisher policy page · verified 2026-09-13
  16. [16]COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, version 4.0, September 2022. Captured 13 September 2026. doaj.org/apply/transparency/joint industry standard · verified 2026-09-13
  17. [17]COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. Version 2, September 2017. doi:10.24318/cope.2019.1.9guideline (PDF on file; web page captured 2026-09-12) · verified 2026-09-12

Fix it before the review is public.

References verified, the reporting checklist audited, and the journal's instructions checked on the manuscript you are submitting. , no subscription.

Read the sample reviewHow it works
For the manuscript you're submitting