Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Transparent Peer Review Gains Momentum in Higher Education Publishing
The peer review process, long considered the bedrock of scholarly publishing, has often been criticized for its opacity and lack of accountability. A recent pilot study led by the European Journal of Higher Education (EJHE) in collaboration with Taylor & Francis suggests that a new model, transparent peer review (TPR), could offer a more trustworthy and inclusive alternative.
Two years into the experiment, both authors and reviewers report overwhelmingly positive experiences, signaling that transparency in peer review may not only be viable but also desirable across disciplines.
From Closed Doors to Transparent Dialogue
Launched in April 2023, EJHE became the first higher education journal to adopt a transparent peer review process. Under this model, the full text of anonymous reviewer reports is published alongside accepted articles, providing readers with insight into the decision-making process while preserving reviewer anonymity.
The rationale behind the trial was clear: to demonstrate the rigor of the journal’s editorial process, strengthen trust in published scholarship, and provide constructive feedback as a learning resource for the academic community.
What Authors and Reviewers Are Saying
Survey results collected after two years of implementation paint a promising picture:
- Quality and satisfaction: 40% of authors rated EJHE’s peer review better than processes they had experienced elsewhere, while only 2% found it worse. Many highlighted the constructive and supportive tone of feedback.
- Reviewer candor preserved: Despite concerns that public reports might lead to guarded feedback, 86% of reviewers said publishing their comments did not alter their approach.
- Future engagement: 73% of authors reported they were very likely to submit to EJHE again, with only 8% saying otherwise. A notable number of reviewers expressed that they would actively choose to review for EJHE because of its transparent approach.
These findings challenge longstanding fears that openness in peer review could discourage honesty or participation. Instead, they suggest transparency may enhance fairness and recognition for reviewers without compromising rigor.
Implications for the Future of Peer Review
The EJHE pilot reflects a broader trend toward rethinking scholarly evaluation. Transparent peer review:
- Increases accountability by making reviews visible.
- Provides learning value for early-career researchers.
- Enhances trust in editorial decisions by showing how manuscripts evolve.
- Offers reviewers potential recognition, as their contributions are more visible.
Matthew Cannon, Associate Director of Open Science Programmes at Taylor & Francis, emphasized the impact of this model:
“We are delighted by the positive outcomes of this trial. Transparent peer review demonstrates the value of the reviewer community, and we are already planning transparency initiatives for more journals.”
Looking Ahead
EJHE’s transparent peer review trial shows the model is no longer experimental but a scalable practice with strong author and reviewer support. As Taylor & Francis extends transparency initiatives across its portfolio, the higher education sector may be seeing the rise of a new standard in peer review.
By combining openness with rigor, transparent peer review can build trust, enhance author experience, and give reviewers the recognition they deserve. For a system long criticized as slow and opaque, this signals a shift toward a more accountable and collaborative future.
The Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE) also plays a vital role in advancing transparency and integrity through its Mentorship Program, JournalsPedia, IndexONE, SciONE platform, and strong focus on editorial ethics and policy frameworks, ensuring that innovations like transparent peer review move from concept to practice across the global publishing community.
Keywords
Transparent peer review scholarly publishing open science higher education journals research evaluation reviewer recognition author satisfaction editorial transparency peer review reform European Journal of Higher Education Taylor & Francis community-driven review open peer review models academic integrity inclusive publishing
Editor’s Brew delivers fresh updates, community highlights, and editorial insights on behalf of ACSE. These posts represent the “daily blend” of news, initiatives, and collective wisdom from across the scholarly publishing community.
View All Posts by Editor's BrewDisclaimer
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.
