Open peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century (Wolfram etal., 2020) . Open peer review refers to various modifications of the traditional scholarly peer review process. These modifications aim to address perceived shortcomings of the conventional system. Here are the three common forms of open peer review:
Open Identities:
In open peer review, authors and reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. Unlike traditional peer review, where reviewers remain anonymous to anyone but the journal’s editors, open peer review allows transparency by revealing reviewer names to authors.
However, reviewer identities may or may not be disclosed to the public.
Open Reports:
Under this model, review reports are made public, rather than being confidentially shared only with the article’s authors. This includes publishing not only the reviewers’ comments but also the authors’ responses and editors’ recommendations.
Typically, this applies to articles accepted for publication, not those that are rejected.
Open Participation:
In open peer review, self-selected reviewers (beyond invited experts) can comment on an article. The assumption is that the article’s content is openly accessible.
These self-selected reviewers may contribute either brief comments or comprehensive reviews.
The text of the article is openly available, allowing broader community participation in the review process.
The adoption of open peer review aims to enhance transparency, provide incentives, reduce wastefulness, and address issues like bullying and harassment in scholarly communication.
What are the benefits of Open Peer Review?
Open peer review (OPR) is a transparent process that allows scholarly articles to be evaluated by experts in the field, while also revealing the identities of both authors and reviewers. OPR can improve the quality of research by:
Encouraging constructive feedback: Openness in the identities of authors and reviewers can lead to better quality feedback rather than simply rejecting the paper.
Reducing bias: Everything is openly available to all, which can reduce the possibility of bias.
Empowering authors: Authors can lead the process by suggesting reviewers themselves.
Improving accountability: The quality of current scientific publications is at stake.
Encouraging collaboration: OPR encourages collaboration and promotes diversity of perspectives, ultimately leading to more robust and credible research outcomes.
Providing learning opportunities: OPR places a research work in the context of a discussion, and gives authors, readers and others a chance to better understand the process from the initial manuscript submission to final published version.
Exposing possible conflicts of interest: OPR may help to expose possible conflicts of interest in some cases.
Adoption of OPR by publishers (Wolfram etal., 2020) [1]
A summary of the most prolific publishers contributing to OPR and their headquarters country appears below. Although many journals today attract an international audience and are managed by international teams of researchers, the prevalence of OPR journals associated with publishers based in Europe stands out. Twenty-four of the 38 (63.2%) identified publishers are based in Europe and account for 445 out of the 617 titles (72.1%). Although the publishers are based in Europe, many of the journals they publish may support journals originating from other areas of the world (e.g., Kowsar). Furthermore, 500 of the OPR journals (81.0%) are published by only five publishers (MDPI, SDI, BioMed Central, Frontiers Media S.A., Kowsar). This points to the important role that publishers have played to date in the promotion of OPR (Wolfram etal., 2020) [1].
Publisher
OPR journals
Percentage of OPR journals (%)
Headquarters location
MDPI
204
33.0
Switzerland
SDI
111
18.0
India
BioMed central
70
11.3
United Kingdom
Frontiers media S.A
64
10.4
Switzerland
Kowsar
51
8.3
The Netherlands
Wiley
40
6.5
USA
Copernicus publications
21
3.4
Germany
PLOS
7
1.1
USA
Elsevier
7
1.1
The Netherlands
EMBO press
5
0.8
Germany
Other publishers
37
6.0
11 countries*
Total
617
100.0
*United Kingdom (19 journals), United States (9), Argentina (1), Bulgaria (1), Canada (1), France (1), Germany (1), Ireland (1), Kenya (1), The Netherlands (1), Switzerland (1)
Recent Biggest Discoveries and advances in Social Sciences research (2024)
For a Global Social Science:
Social science has not kept pace with globalization. While global interactions have expanded exponentially, much of social science still focuses on the national level.
To develop a global perspective, we need to reorient ourselves to a new level of aggregation.
The scale matters: Consider the difference between millions, billions, and trillions. As processes become more interrelated and complex, traditional scholarly foci face limitations.
For example, social media’s massive global impact is hard to predict using traditional methods. The bounded rationality of even great thinkers imposes constraints when dealing with emergent phenomena [2].
UNESCO Science Report (2021):
The report analyzes global trends in science governance and scientific endeavors from 2015 to 2021 [3].
Yale’s Data-Driven Social Sciences:
Yale has established innovative centers for research, including the Data-Intensive Social Science Center, which facilitates access to complex datasets, and the Institute for Foundations of Data Science, applying data methodology across disciplines [4].
Psychological Bonding and Shared Experiences:
Recent research highlights how perceptions of globally shared life experiences and biology can strengthen psychological bonds among humanity [5].
Recent Biggest Discoveries and advances in Humanities research:
Promoting Global Humanities:
While global studies have seen significant expansion and institutionalization since the early 2000s, global humanities have received comparatively less attention.
Various attempts have been made to promote global humanities through international scholarly networks, academic departments, and study programs.
Researchers have outlined a research agenda for global humanities, emphasizing inclusivity, critical analysis, and transdisciplinary approaches.
The goal is to develop frameworks that allow the study of all cultural expressions across humankind, fostering intercultural dialogue and understanding [6].
Common Themes in Global Humanities:
Scholars advocate for global humanities to be globally inclusive, critical, and transdisciplinary.
Recent turns in humanities disciplines, such as environmental humanities, world archaeology, global history, world literature, and postcolonial studies, contribute to this endeavor.
By shedding traditional national and Eurocentric biases, global humanities aim to analyze cultural diversity and promote dialogue beyond the scope of modern globalization [6].
These advancements represent significant progress in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities research.
Miguel A. Centeno, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Nitsan Chorev, Marilyn Grell-Brisk, Hiroko Inoue, Paul Larcey, Victoria Reyes, Kristin Surak; For a Global Social Science. Global Perspectives11 May 2020; 1 (1): 11649. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/001c.11649
“I am writing this email to sincerely appreciate the exceptional work you and your team have done on our manuscript. Kindly pass on our gratitude to every member of your team for their remarkable efforts. Rest assured, we will definitely be seeking your team’s expertise again in the future.” (English Academic Editing Service)
Prof. Dr. Sherif Saad
Canada., [Mail Date: 12-September-2023]
“Many thanks for the reviewing and the kind comments of the reviewer” (English Academic Editing Service)
Dr. Dominique Misselyn
Belgium., [Mail Date: 18-March-2023]
“Many thanks for your excellent service” (English Academic Editing Service)
Dr. Dominique Misselyn
Belgium., [Mail Date: 04-March-2023]
“Thank you very much for the very thorough and detailed correction of the manuscript. It’s very much improved” (English Academic Editing Service)
Dr. K.J. Kalisvaart
MD PhD, The Netherlands., [Mail Date: 13-February-2023]
