Prof. Donnelly. Emeritus Professor, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham

Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism introduced transparent peer review in January 2019. One year on, we talked with the editor of the journal, Richard Donnelly, about this initiative and how it’s working so far.

What is Transparent Peer Review?

The aim of Transparent Peer Review (TPR) is to “open up” the peer review process. Researchers are offered the option of TPR when they submit to the journal. If they choose TPR, and their article is published, then the peer reviewers’ reports, authors’ responses, and editors’ decisions will accompany their published article. Reviewers also have the option to disclose their names alongside their reports, although the majority prefer to be anonymous. The complete peer review history for each article is freely available on a dedicated page on Publons, linked to from the “Open Research” section of the published article on Wiley Online Library (see for example this article and its peer review history). Each component of the peer review history has a DOI and is fully citable.

What has your experience been?

It’s been really positive. The journal offers TPR to authors as an opt-out (authors are opted in when they submit their paper unless they choose to opt-out). But in terms of uptake, authors embrace it - we see 86% of authors choosing to remain opted-in to TPR. Readers can also see how authors respond to reviewer comments, which helps to provide insight into the peer review process and puts the final published article in more context. Editor decisions are also displayed and this helps to provide accountability for the peer review process. TPR also helps allay any concerns about potential conflicts of interest. For example, in this field of research, where there is often sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies, transparency into the peer review history can help address any concerns regarding perceived conflicts of interest, and readers can see the rigorous peer review process. It’s also been great from the perspective of teaching early career researchers about the peer review process and the qualities of a constructive report.

Have there been any concerns?

There can be some areas of sensitivity. For example, authors may wish to refer to unpublished data to address a reviewer’s concerns but not include it in their response (the response will be made public if the paper is accepted), because the data will contribute to a future publication. From my perspective as an editor, I am sympathetic to authors in this position and there is no obligation to share unpublished data publicly.

What would be your advice to other editors?

I’d strongly recommend editors embrace transparency and make the peer review process visible. Overall, it’s been a really positive development for the journal. The strength of TPR is that it showcases the quality of the review process by publicly displaying comprehensive reviewer comments and comprehensive author responses and revisions. The role of the editor is to support authors and reviewers – and that is made clear since editor decisions are also published. All parties are accountable for the final published research.

Thank you to the dedicated team who continue to support this initiative: Mark Domingo, Jane Domino, Chris Graf, Elizabeth Matson, Elisha Morris, Candace Oman, Emma Thomas, Elisha Morris.

For Wiley editors, we’re hosting a waitlist for the next group of journals that would like to introduce more transparency to the peer review process. To add your journal, please speak with your Wiley Journal Publishing Manager.

Further reading: 

Why More Journals Are Joining Our Transparent Peer Review Pilot

How can Editors encourage Open Research Practices?