All submissions to The Open Review will go through a peer-review process before a decision can be made on publication. The peer review process is conducted by invited referees. Authors may recommend a referees in their cover letters. Peer reviewers should meet the following criteria:
- Qualified: Referees for articles should already hold a doctorate or be on a SWDTP doctoral scholarship in the relevant field of study. Exceptions will be made for disciplines where doctorates are not necessary (e.g. Education, Library Science), or when an individual has a demonstrable public record of expertise.
- Expert: referees should have a proven track record of up-to-date expertise in the field.
- Impartial: referee should have no conflicts of interests that could bias their assessment of the article. They should not be close collaborators of authors, or be personally associated with them.
If an article contains a new or complex statistical analyses or formal method, authors should suggest at least one referee with the technical capabilities (e.g. a proven track record a statistical expert) to review the research.
We ask authors not to approach referees about the peer review process independently of this publication as doing so my influence or invalidate their review.
In their capacity as editors, The Open Review editorial team will do the following during the peer-review process:
- Communicate with referees
- Ensure all aspects of an article are reviewed
- Ensure that peer reviewers are suitable
- Moderate referee reports before they are published.
Peer Review and Open Science
As part of our commitment to Open Science, the Open Review uses Open Peer Review. This is a modified version of the traditional peer review process in which the names of peer reviewers are disclosed. In addition, we will also post the entire pre-publication history of the article including the peer-review comments, author responses to the reviewer and earlier editions of the manuscript.
The Peer Review Process
1) Article submitted
2) Articles screened by editors for relevance
2) Peer reviewers found
3) Peer reviewers review article.
4) Referee comments returned to author
5) Author writes response to referee and submits revised manuscript
6) Referee submits final comments and decision