Open access publishing has grown substantially over the past two decades. What was once a relatively niche corner of academic publishing now accounts for a significant and growing share of newly published research across disciplines. Open access comes in several forms. Gold open access means the final published article is freely available immediately on the journal’s website. Typically, this is funded by an article processing charge (APC) paid by the author or their institution. Green open access means the author deposits a version of the article in an institutional or subject repository, making it freely available even if the journal version remains behind a paywall.
A relatively newer publishing model, diamond open access, is also gaining popularity. Here, journals are free to access for readers and free to publish in for authors. These are often funded by institutions or funders rather than authors or readers. Another open access model is that of hybrid publishing, where hybrid journals operate behind a paywall but allow individual articles to be made open access upon payment of an APC.
For peer reviewers, this raises a practical question: Does reviewing for an open access journal require a different approach?
The short answer is – mostly not.
The core of good peer review is a thorough, honest, and specific assessment of a manuscript’s validity, methods, and contribution. This remains the same regardless of the publication model. However, there are some aspects of open access publishing that are worth understanding, and a few considerations that may be specific to particular open access journals or policies.
The review process itself is essentially the same
For most open access journals, the peer review process works just like it does in journals that follow the traditional publishing model: you receive an invitation, review the manuscript, and submit a report with a recommendation. The same ethical obligations apply: confidentiality, impartiality, independence, and honesty. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers apply across all publication and peer review models.
Some open access journals, particularly those that use a validity-only review model, assessing whether a study is technically sound rather than whether it is novel or impactful, may ask their reviewers to focus specifically on scientific soundness. If you are reviewing for a journal with this kind of brief, your peer review should focus on methodology, data integrity, and the appropriateness of the conclusions. Novelty and significance are editorial judgments in this model, not reviewer ones.
Open and transparent peer review
Some open access journals operate transparent or open peer review, where reviewer reports are published alongside the article. The definitions of open peer review vary. It could mean that reviewer identities are disclosed, reports are published, or both. If you are reviewing for a journal that follows open peer review, be aware that your report may be published with your name.
This is an additional reason to ensure your review is professional, specific, and constructive. It will be read not just by the authors and editor, but potentially by anyone interested in the published research. If you are given the opportunity to have your review published, consider taking it: published reviews contribute to training and transparency in the field.
Watch for predatory journals
Not all open access journals maintain rigorous peer review standards. Predatory journals, those that charge APCs without conducting genuine peer review, are a known problem in the open access landscape. If you receive an invitation from a journal you have not heard of, it is worth spending a few minutes checking whether it is indexed in recognized databases.
Reviewing for a predatory journal is a waste of your time and does not serve the research community. Signs of a potentially predatory journal include unsolicited invitations with unusually rapid turnaround requests, implausibly broad scope, unclear or non-existent review processes described on the website, and requests to pay to become an editorial board member.
The value of open access peer review
Peer reviewing for open access journals contributes to making research freely available to readers who might not otherwise have access, researchers at under-resourced institutions, practitioners in the field, and the public. That is a meaningful contribution and one worth making thoughtfully. The standards you bring to reviewing for an open access journal should be identical to those you bring to reviewing for any other journal: thorough, impartial, honest, and specific.
We’d like to hear from you
Have you reviewed for open access journals? Share your experience in the comments below.
For more guidance on performing peer reviews, join the ReviewerOne Community.
Leave a Comment