Are there any drawbacks to Transparent Peer Review compared to Traditional Peer Review?

Potential Drawbacks of Transparent Peer Review Compared to Traditional Peer Review

While Transparent Peer Review (TPR) offers advantages like accountability and trust in academic publishing, it also comes with certain challenges compared to Traditional Peer Review. Below are some key drawbacks and concerns associated with TPR.

1. Reviewer Reluctance & Anonymity Concerns

• Some reviewers may hesitate to participate if their comments could be made public, even if their identities remain anonymous.
• Fear of retaliation, especially in competitive fields, might discourage candid critiques.
• Junior researchers may feel pressured to provide more positive feedback if their reviews are publicly accessible.

2. Potential for Reduced Candor in Reviews

• Traditional Peer Review allows reviewers to provide unfiltered, honest feedback without fear of consequences.
• In TPR, knowing that their reports might be scrutinized by authors, editors, and the public could make reviewers more cautious, possibly reducing the critical depth of their assessments.

3. Increased Editorial and Reviewer Workload

• Editors may need to moderate and curate publicly available review reports, increasing administrative burden.
• Reviewers might spend extra time refining their language and justifying their critiques, which can slow down the review process.

4. Risk of Misinterpretation by Readers

• Publicly available review reports may be misinterpreted by non-expert readers or taken out of context.
• A negative review that led to a revised, improved article might still be available, potentially misleading readers about the final quality of the paper.

5. Privacy & Confidentiality Issues

• Some journals struggle with balancing transparency and confidentiality, especially when sensitive research findings are involved.
• In interdisciplinary research, transparency might expose commercially valuable or patentable information prematurely.

6. Challenges in Standardization & Adoption

• Not all academic disciplines and journals have adopted TPR, leading to inconsistencies in the publishing process.
• Certain journals may implement TPR selectively, creating disparities in transparency expectations across fields.

Comparison Table: Transparent vs. Traditional Peer Review

How Scholar9 and OJSCloud Help Address These Drawbacks

Platforms like Scholar9 and OJSCloud offer customizable transparency levels, allowing journals to:

• Maintain reviewer anonymity while publishing review reports.
• Automate review moderation to reduce editorial workload.
• Offer opt-in transparency, giving reviewers and authors control over disclosure levels.

Conclusion

Transparent Peer Review enhances trust and accountability but introduces challenges such as reviewer reluctance, increased workload, and confidentiality concerns. Journals and publishers must balance transparency with practicality to ensure a fair and efficient review process.