Peer review is the process of evaluating a manuscript prior to its publication. Reviewers with relevant expertise in the field analyse the work and provide feedback to the authors and editors. Peer review helps to assess, amongst other things, the reliability of the methods, the accuracy of the analysis, the presentation of the results, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data presented.
Peer review is part of the publication process. It does not guarantee that a publication will be free of errors: reviewers may not identify all issues, and individual comments may be open to debate.
Journals use various peer-review models. The simplest way to distinguish between them is by who knows the identities of those involved in the process.
| Model | Identity of participants | The most important feature |
| Single-anonymized | The reviewer knows the author; the author does not know the reviewer | The reviewer’s anonymity vis-à-vis the author |
| Double-anonymized | The author and the reviewer do not know each other’s identities | Mutual anonymity |
| Open / transparent | Depending on the model | Making selected elements of the process available |
The terminology is not entirely consistent. Different publishers may use similar terms to refer to slightly different solutions.
Open Peer Review (OPR) does not refer to a single, strictly defined model. It is a term used to describe various approaches, all of which share the common aim of increasing the transparency of the peer review process.
In practice, ‘openness’ may relate to the reviewer’s identity, the content of the review, the authors’ responses, the history of subsequent rounds of peer review, or the involvement of the wider academic community.
| Element | What does that mean? |
| Open identities | Disclosure of the reviewer’s identity. |
| Open reports | Publishing reviewers’ reports. Reviewers may still remain anonymous. |
| Open responses | Publishing authors’ responses to reviewers’ comments. |
| Open history | Sharing the process history, e.g. successive rounds of review. |
| Open interaction / participation | The opportunity for participants to interact or for the wider academic community to get involved. |
Open Access primarily concerns the availability of a published article to readers. Open Peer Review concerns the transparency of the peer-review process.
These are two separate aspects of publishing. An article can be available via Open Access whilst also being peer-reviewed anonymously. Conversely, an article published in a hybrid journal may undergo an open or transparent peer-review process.
Choosing to publish an article in Open Access does not automatically mean choosing Open Peer Review.
The terms ‘open peer review’ and ‘transparent peer review’ are used in various ways in the literature and in publishing practice, and do not always mean exactly the same thing.
Transparent peer review most often refers to increasing the transparency of the process by making its components available, such as reviewers’ reports, authors’ responses and editorial decisions. It is not necessarily required to disclose the reviewer’s identity.
Open Peer Review is a broader concept and may encompass various forms of opening up the peer review process, including the disclosure of the identities of authors and reviewers, the publication of reports, open discussion, or the involvement of the wider academic community.
It is therefore worth checking, when choosing a journal, exactly what is open or made available under the peer-review model used.
Open peer review can help readers understand how an article has been assessed. Published reports may also be of educational value to early-career researchers and future reviewers.
At the same time, openness can influence reviewers’ behaviour, for example, their willingness to accept an invitation or the way in which they phrase their critical comments.
Therefore, the research findings do not support the simple assertion that one peer-review model is always better than the others.
In the biomedical sciences, the results of published research can influence clinical practice, treatment decisions and public health. For this reason, transparency in the process leading up to publication can be of particular importance.
At the same time, medical research must take into account the confidentiality of manuscripts, conflicts of interest, patient data and other ethical requirements. Open peer review does not override these principles.
BMJ Open employs a fully open peer review process: reviewers sign their reviews, provide their identifying details and declare any conflicts of interest, and the reviews are published alongside the accepted article.
The BMJ makes elements of the pre-publication history of research papers available; the scope of the material depends on the type of article and the applicable guidelines.
A good example is an article by researchers from the Medical University of Silesia:
Lewandowski P, Baron M, Rojek MA, et al.
How do serum cytokine levels change in myocarditis and inflammatory dilated cardiomyopathy relative to healthy individuals? A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMJ Open. 2025;15:e087052.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087052
For this publication, the review history is available on the website Article information (Info), in the section Peer review history.
BMJ Open – Article information / Peer review history:
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/2/e087052.info
Not always.
- A review may be made public, but the reviewer may remain anonymous.
- A review may be public and signed.
- The authors’ responses and a history of the subsequent rounds may also be published.
Before submitting your manuscript, please check the exact format required by the journal of your choice.
- Does the reviewer remain anonymous?
- Is the reviewer’s report published?
- Is the reviewer’s name published?
- Are the authors’ responses published?
- Is there a record of the successive rounds of review available?
- Is the model compulsory or optional?
- Do the rules apply to all articles, or only to certain types of publication?
- Does the journal set out guidelines on the use of AI in the peer-review process?
The best source of information is the current policy of the specific journal, rather than just the publisher’s general policy.
Open Peer Review can be regarded as one aspect of Open Science. This does not, however, mean that all elements of the publication process must be open.
| Area | What does openness refer to? |
| the Open Access model | Access to the published article |
| Open Data | Access to research data, taking into account ethical and legal restrictions |
| Open Methods / Materials | Greater transparency regarding methods and materials |
| Open Peer Review | Greater transparency in the peer-review process |
| Open Credit / Identifiers | Better recognition of the contributions made by researchers and other participants in the process |
- Peer review is the process of scientifically evaluating a manuscript prior to publication.
- ‘Open Peer Review’ is a term used to describe various models designed to increase the transparency of this process.
- There is no single, universal definition of open peer review.
- Open peer review does not always mean that the reviewer’s name is disclosed.
- Publishing a reviewer’s report does not necessarily mean revealing their identity.
- Open Access and Open Peer Review relate to different aspects of publishing.
- Open Peer Review may also be practised in hybrid journals.
- The specific peer-review model is determined by the journal’s policy.