Peer review is widely accepted as the underpinning of research evaluation and assessment at scholarly journals. However, the process can sometimes feel like a black box for readers of articles who may wonder how many rounds of review an article went through, what questions were asked of reviewers, and what, if any, changes the author(s) were required to make to their work prior to publication.
In recent years, some journals have begun introducing varying forms of “transparent peer review” to make the process more open. In transparent peer review models, some or all peer review details are made publicly available alongside a published article. This may include: the review reports, author responses and revisions, editorial decision letters, and sometimes reviewer identities (often based on opt-in).
By offering readers insight into the mechanics behind editorial decision-making, transparent peer review can help increase trust in scholarly publishing. It can also encourage reviewer accountability and support reviewer education by giving early-career researchers the opportunity to learn from real peer review exchanges.
Collabra: Psychology, published by the University of California Press, was among the early adopters of transparent peer review. Recently, I reached out to the journal’s editor-in-chief, Don van Ravenzwaaij, to learn more about why Collabra’s team chose to transition to transparent peer review and how it impacted the journal. Below is a transcript of our discussion, which is part of Scholastica’s “Community Conversations” blog series, where we invite Scholastica users to share publishing initiatives and learnings.
Many thanks to Don for taking the time for this interview!
Interview with Don van Ravenzwaaij
DP: When did the Collabra team begin implementing transparent peer review, and what was the impetus for that decision?
DvR: First, a disclaimer: I became a senior editor for Collabra in 2021 and editor-in-chief in 2024. The implementation of transparent peer review was before my time. After conferring with our managing editor, I learned that Collabra used to have an optional open peer review process when it started publishing in 2015. All submitting authors had a choice of open peer review or closed peer review. The open peer review option eventually became the most preferred choice. It was some time in 2020 when Collabra transitioned to a fully open peer review process that was required for getting work published in the journal. It was part of Simine Vazire’s editorial philosophy, who was the editor-in-chief before me, to have transparency and openness, and that included an open peer review process as one of the guiding principles.
DP: It’s interesting that most authors opted for Collabra’s early transparent peer review option before it was the default. Taylor & Francis recently conducted a survey of authors and reviews two years into a transparent peer review pilot at one of its journals that similarly yielded positive sentiments. It shows that many researchers definitely see the value.
I do also want to quickly note that we interviewed Simine back in 2021 for a Scholastica blog post about Collabra’s approach to factoring structural equity into publication planning as an open access journal. Blog readers can check out that past conversation here. Myself and the Scholastica team have enjoyed following the progression of Collabra. The journal has implemented many forward-thinking publishing practices over the years.
DP: Can you explain which aspects of peer review communication Collabra attaches to articles as supplementary files and how the editors decided what to include? Has that changed over time?
DvR: We include peer reviewer comments (signed or unsigned), responses to review letters by the authors, and editorial decision letters. We do not include reviews shared by authors in the context of streamlined review (those are reviews accompanying a ‘reject’ decision by a different journal), unless the authors obtained permission from the previous journal to make those details public.
DP: That’s a helpful breakdown. For readers who may be unfamiliar with Collabra’s streamlined peer review model, they allow authors whose manuscripts have been rejected from another journal within the past year, for reasons that are not due to lack of scientific or ethical rigor, to include prior reviews of their manuscript and the decision letter with their submission and request a streamlined review factoring in that previous assessment. I was interested to learn about that option!
DP: What has been your experience with transparent peer review from an editorial workflow perspective? Do you have any advice for journals considering initiating similar processes?
DvR: To be honest, it does not change much about our editorial workflow. It does add some extra steps for the managing editor for articles that are published in the form of collating the review history and appending it to the published article as supplementary material.
DP: Is transparent peer review now standard for all Collabra articles, or is it based on authors and/or reviewers opting in to allow that communication to be shared?
DvR: Transparent peer review is standard at our journal, we do not offer the option to opt out.
DP: What do you think are the main benefits of transparent peer review for stakeholders, and have any authors, reviewers, or readers reacted to your transparent peer review process?
DvR: I think the main benefit for authors is that the tone of reviewer comments, at least on average, tends to be more civil. Knowing that your reviewer comments may end up out there (pending an ultimate “accept” decision) may make at least some reviewers think twice about how they frame certain critiques.
For reviewers, especially more junior academics, the benefit is that there is something tangible they can point to. They can receive credit for having helped shape the paper into its final form.
For readers, the benefit is that they can read through the reviewer history, which can be educational in terms of the genesis of a paper, in terms of how to write a review, and in terms of how to construct a response to review letters. I have had readers reach out to me to say they really appreciated the transparency of the peer review history.
DP: It’s exciting to hear how readers have commented on the value of transparent peer review for them and to the scholarly publishing process in general. Thank you so much again for taking the time to share your experience, Don!
Interested in reading more Scholastica community conversation series blog posts? Check out our last interview with Jocelyn Dawson, Director of Journals at Penn Press, about how the Press partnered with the African American Intellectual History Society to launch the journal Global Black Thought and her advice for other publishers planning to start new titles.
