Difference Between Transparent Peer Review and Traditional Peer Review
Transparent Peer Review (TPR) and Traditional Peer Review (TRP) differ significantly in process, visibility, and ethical considerations. Below is a structured comparison outlining their key distinctions.
1. Definition and Process
- Transparent Peer Review (TPR)
- Peer review reports, editorial comments, and author responses are publicly accessible.
- Ensures accountability and traceability in editorial decisions.
- Example: eLife and PLOS ONE openly publish peer review reports.
- Traditional Peer Review (TRP)
- Peer reviews are confidential and accessible only to the author and editor.
- Reviewers remain anonymous, and their comments are not publicly available.
- Example: Most subscription-based journals follow TRP.
✔ Key Difference: TPR promotes openness, while TRP maintains confidentiality.
2. Visibility and Transparency
- Transparent Peer Review
- Peer review reports are published alongside the article, allowing scrutiny by the scientific community.
- Provides transparency in decision-making and editorial evaluations.
- Traditional Peer Review
- The review process is hidden, and readers cannot see reviewer comments.
- Can result in bias or favoritism, as decisions are not publicly justified.
✔ Key Difference: TPR allows public scrutiny of reviews, while TRP keeps them private.
3. Accountability and Ethical Standards
- Transparent Peer Review
- Reduces the risk of bias, conflicts of interest, and unethical practices.
- Reviewers are aware that their feedback is visible, leading to more constructive and professional critiques.
- Traditional Peer Review
- Lack of transparency can sometimes allow hidden biases or unfair rejections.
- Cases of reviewer misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, harsh criticism) have been reported.
✔ Key Difference: TPR ensures ethical integrity, while TRP may allow bias.
4. Review Speed and Efficiency
- Transparent Peer Review
- Can be slightly faster as authors and readers can engage with feedback directly.
- Encourages constructive and accountable reviewing, reducing unnecessary delays.
- Traditional Peer Review
- May have longer delays due to hidden back-and-forth communication.
- Editors have to filter and manage confidential reviews before sharing them with authors.
✔ Key Difference: TPR can accelerate the review process, while TRP may introduce delays.
5. Reviewer Anonymity
- Transparent Peer Review
- Reviewers may or may not remain anonymous, depending on the journal's policy.
- Some journals allow signed reviews, while others keep reviewer identities hidden but make comments public.
- Traditional Peer Review
- Reviewers remain strictly anonymous, ensuring privacy but reducing accountability.
- This anonymity can sometimes lead to overly critical or unfair reviews.
✔ Key Difference: TPR offers flexibility in reviewer anonymity, while TRP enforces complete anonymity.
6. Trust and Credibility
- Transparent Peer Review
- Builds trust among researchers, as the review process is open and verifiable.
- Readers can verify the rigor of the peer review process.
- Traditional Peer Review
- Trust is based on faith in journal policies, without public proof of review quality.
- Cases of fraudulent peer reviews and fake reviewer identities have been reported.
✔ Key Difference: TPR enhances trust through openness, while TRP relies on journal credibility.
Comparison: Transparent Peer Review vs. Traditional Peer Review
How Scholar9 and OJSCloud Support Transparent Peer Review
- Automated Transparency Features: Enables journals to publish peer reviews efficiently.
- Customizable Review Settings: Supports flexible anonymity for reviewers.
- Efficient Review Tracking: Improves accountability and reduces delays in publishing.
Conclusion: Which is Better?
Transparent Peer Review offers greater accountability, fairness, and trust.
However, Traditional Peer Review remains widely used due to its familiarity and anonymity. Many high-impact journals are gradually adopting Transparent Peer Review to enhance credibility.
True scholar network
