A new scholar's perspective on open peer review

Abstract

This article argues that the pedagogical and scholarly benefits of open peer review far outweigh those of traditional double-blind peer review, but require a shift in our perspective of the function and value of peer review – from a gate-keeping process, toward a supportive, constructive process of collaboration between peers and mentors.

Keywords:

• peer review
• scholarship
• open peer review
• double-blind peer review

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the peer reviewers for this article. They provided constructive feedback on how to improve this article about open peer review, even while they supported the double-blind peer review process used to accept this article into publication. The motivation and some of the ideas in this article came from a Twitter conversation I had with several colleagues who are affiliated with the journal Hybrid Pedagogy, which uses open, collaborative peer review. Thank you Jesse, Sean, Adam, Kris and Bonnie. Thank you also to the editorial board members of the Journal of Pedagogic Development for helping me consider the pros of double-blind peer review to help slightly balance my argument in this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. I do not discuss post-publication open review, which was mentioned in the Taylor & Francis survey, because I have no direct experience of it as author or reviewer, and there is no space to discuss it here, but it is a model that has been used in the humanities and medical science (see Shakespeare Quarterly policy discussed in Cohen 2010, and the British Medical Journal policy, BMJ undated).