What role do authors play in Transparent Peer Review versus Traditional Peer Review?

Role of Authors in Transparent Peer Review vs. Traditional Peer Review

Authors play a vital role in both Transparent Peer Review (TPR) and Traditional Peer Review (TPR), but their level of involvement, responsibilities, and visibility differ significantly. Below is a detailed comparison of their roles in each system.

1. Submission & Initial Review

• Manuscript Submission
• Traditional Peer Review: Authors submit their manuscript, and the review process is conducted confidentially.
• Transparent Peer Review: Authors submit their work, with the understanding that review reports and editorial decisions may be publicly accessible.
• Initial Screening
• Traditional Peer Review: Editors review the manuscript for relevance, quality, and ethical compliance before sending it to reviewers.
• Transparent Peer Review: The process remains the same, but authors may have access to tracking tools to monitor review progress.

2. Interaction with Reviewers & Editorial Decisions

• Access to Reviewer Reports
• Traditional Peer Review: Authors receive private reviewer reports without knowing the reviewers’ identities.
• Transparent Peer Review: Authors receive openly accessible review reports, and in some cases, reviewers' identities are disclosed.
• Responding to Reviewers
• Traditional Peer Review: Authors submit confidential responses addressing the reviewers' concerns.
• Transparent Peer Review: Authors publicly respond to review comments, ensuring transparency in revisions.
• Editorial Decisions
• Traditional Peer Review: Editorial decisions (acceptance, revision, or rejection) are communicated privately.
• Transparent Peer Review: Editorial decisions and justifications are made visible, improving accountability.

3. Revisions & Publication Process

• Revisions
• Traditional Peer Review: Authors revise their work based on private feedback and resubmit.
• Transparent Peer Review: Authors make revisions based on publicly documented feedback, ensuring a clear improvement process.
• Final Acceptance
• Traditional Peer Review: If accepted, the paper is published without a public review history.
• Transparent Peer Review: If accepted, the paper is published along with review history, responses, and editorial justifications.
• Post-Publication Interaction
• Traditional Peer Review: Limited opportunities for further discussion, often confined to separate responses or letters.
• Transparent Peer Review: Authors can engage in post-publication discussions, allowing for continued improvement and clarification.

4. Benefits & Challenges for Authors

Benefits of Transparent Peer Review for Authors

• Increased Trust & Credibility – Transparent review reports validate the rigor and integrity of research.
• Better Feedback Quality – Reviewers provide constructive and detailed feedback due to the transparency of the process.
• Recognition & Academic Visibility – Review histories showcase an author’s dedication to improving research.
• Improved Communication with Reviewers – Authors benefit from clear and accountable discussions.

Challenges in Transparent Peer Review

• Public Criticism Risk – Negative feedback is openly accessible, which may be challenging for some authors.
• More Accountability – Authors must carefully respond to feedback, knowing it will be visible.
• Potentially Longer Review Process – Some journals require more detailed responses due to transparency.

5. Role of Transparent Peer Review Platforms

• Scholar9 and OJSCloud provide essential tools for authors, such as:

1. Automated Review Management – Organizing responses and facilitating seamless interactions.
2. Real-Time Progress Tracking – Allowing authors to monitor their manuscript’s review status.
3. Ethical Compliance Features – Ensuring a fair and transparent peer review process.

Conclusion

In Traditional Peer Review, authors have limited involvement, receiving confidential feedback and submitting private revisions. In Transparent Peer Review, authors play a more engaged role, responding publicly to reviews and contributing to an open, ethical review process. Platforms like Scholar9 and OJSCloud assist in streamlining this process, ensuring fairness, efficiency, and research credibility.