Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Transparency Gaps in Journal Policies, Reviewer Selection, and Publication Workflows and How to Address Them
Journals are central actors in the knowledge economy. Researchers and practitioners depend on them to disseminate credible and trustworthy research. When core aspects of journal operations are not transparent, confidence in scholarly publishing weakens. A lack of clarity around editorial decisions, peer review, and publication processes can create confusion and raise concerns about fairness and accountability.
Three major transparency gaps commonly observed in academic publishing: journal policies, reviewer selection, and publication workflows. It explains how these gaps emerge and outlines practical steps journals can take to address them.
What Are Transparency Gaps?
Transparency gaps occur when journals fail to clearly communicate how decisions are made, how editorial processes function, or which standards guide publication. For authors, reviewers, and readers, this lack of explanation makes it difficult to understand why some manuscripts progress while others do not. Over time, these gaps contribute to mistrust and frustration within the research community.
Transparency Gaps in Journal Policies
Many journals provide limited or vaguely worded information about their editorial and ethical policies. Authors are often left uncertain about expectations related to manuscript evaluation, research integrity, and ethical compliance. This uncertainty can result in unintentional policy violations and decisions that appear inconsistent or unexplained.
Common areas where clarity is lacking include:
- Criteria for manuscript acceptance or rejection
- Policies on plagiarism, duplicate submission, and research ethics
- Procedures for managing conflicts of interest
To address these gaps, journals should publish clearly written editorial and ethical policies on their websites. Aligning these policies with established standards such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines can help ensure consistency and credibility. Providing examples of acceptable and unacceptable practices and updating policies regularly to reflect changes in technology and ethics are equally important.
Transparency Gaps in Reviewer Selection
Peer review is intended to be impartial, yet many journals disclose very little about how reviewers are selected. Details regarding reviewer qualifications, expertise, and conflict-of-interest checks are often not publicly available. This opacity can make editorial decisions appear arbitrary, even when they are not.
Greater openness can be achieved by clearly outlining reviewer selection criteria and expectations. Journals may also require reviewers and editors to declare potential conflicts of interest, following best practices recommended by organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Some journals are also experimenting with optional open peer review, where reviewer identities or comments are shared with author consent to enhance accountability.
Transparency Gaps in Publication Workflows
For many authors, the publication process remains unclear after submission. Journals frequently do not explain how long reviews typically take, how editorial decisions differ, or how revised manuscripts are evaluated. This lack of communication can leave authors uncertain and disengaged from the process.
Improving transparency in workflows requires journals to publish estimated timelines for review, revision, and final publication. Clear and well-structured decision letters can help authors understand outcomes, while encouraging reviewers to provide constructive and actionable feedback that supports manuscript improvement. Platforms such as Open Research Europe demonstrate how transparent workflows can be communicated effectively.
Best Practices for Journals
To strengthen transparency, journals should focus on a few core practices:
- Publishing clear editorial policies and reviewer selection criteria
- Disclosing conflicts of interest and decision processes
- Communicating timelines and decisions consistently with authors
Regular updates and open communication throughout the review process can significantly improve trust in journal operations.
Transparency gaps in journal policies, reviewer selection, and publication workflows continue to challenge fairness and trust in academic publishing. These gaps can be reduced through clearer communication, open practices, and alignment with recognized publishing standards. By adopting transparent procedures, journals can enhance credibility and contribute to a more reliable and equitable research ecosystem.
Keywords
Scholarly publishing transparency peer review journal policies publication ethics editorial workflows research integrity
Dr. Mujtaba Ellahi Mahar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts & Basic Sciences at BUITEMS, Quetta, Pakistan. He holds a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Science and Technology Beijing, China. His research focuses on polymer chemistry, nanomaterials, and advanced material characterization. Dr. Mahar works on developing functional polymer-based materials and nanoparticle systems for industrial and technological applications. He actively collaborates on interdisciplinary projects in materials science and applied nanotechnology.
View All Posts by Mujtaba Ellahi MaharDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
