In a nutshell

A collaborative project involving Wiley together with Publons and ScholarOne (both part of Clarivate Analytics).

 

The project gives authors the choice of transparent peer review on submission to a journal regardless of the current model of peer review the journal is operating (for example, single blind, double blind). If their article is published and authors have elected for transparent peer review the peer reviewers’ reports, authors’ responses, and editors’ decisions will accompany publication. Reviewers have the option to disclose their names alongside their reports. The peer review history is openly available on a page hosted by Publons via a link from the article. Each component has a DOI, ensuring each element is fully citable. For those reviewers who choose to sign their reviews, the DOIs can also be added to their ORCID records.

Goals and intentions

Wiley is committed to moving towards greater openness and reproducibility of research, including increasing transparency in peer review. A transparent peer review workflow shows readers the process behind editorial decision making, increases accountability, and helps recognise the work of editors and peer reviewers.

 

Journals joining the pilot have the flexibility to incorporate transparency into their existing workflows and processes without making other major changes to how they conduct peer review. When combined with author choice (and peer reviewer choices) this approach provides a very flexible way to open-up peer review.

 

In recognising the need to  change the conversation around transparent peer review and learn more, it’s vital that any initiative has the capability to scale and be compatible with different peer review models, across diverse subject disciplines and publisher workflows. We have taken a collaborative approach working with Publons and ScholarOne to enable this.

Review process
  • Review requested by
    Authors
  • Reviewer selected by
    Editor, service, or community
  • Public interaction
    Not included
  • Opportunity for author response
    Included
  • Recommendation
    Binary decision
Review policy
  • Review coverage
    Complete paper
  • Reviewer identity known to
    Editor or service
  • Competing interests
    Checked
Social Networks
Review features
  • Manuscript hosting
    Yes
  • Eligible reviewers/editors
    Editors invite reviewers to participate. The reviewers are then asked to agree to transparent peer review and it is optional to have their name disclosed.
Results
  • Number of scholarly outputs commented on
    100-1,000
  • Metrics
    It is possible to track how many people view the peer review history, linked from the article to Publons.
  • Results summary

    The pilot started in September 2018 with the inclusion of the first journal Clinical Genetics.  As of end January 2019, 77% of authors have agreed to transparent peer review (417 out of 528 submissions) and 23% of reviewers have signed their reports. These initial results will be presented at the Open Science Conference in Berlin (March 2019).

     

    The pilot was extended in January 2019 to include a further ten journals, and we will be reviewing how the pilot is progressing in due course.

  • Results URL
mood_bad
  • No comments yet.
  • Add a comment