Peer review policy

Publications in an open access model does not prevent peer reviewing. While the traditional blind peer review model, broadly used in academic journals, has its pros and cons, the emerging open (non-blind) author-directed peer review (ADPR) model offers an alternative to editors in despair of "getting the reviewing done” (Aarssen & Lortie, 2010, p. 29). In any case, reviewers must engage in a critical discourse to ensure quality in research publication.

Whether blind or open, we welcome both types of peer-reviewing.

In a blind peer review model, neither the author's nor the reviewer's identity is revealed to one another. Generally, the editors select reviewers behind closed doors without letting others know about their choices. While blind reviews are said to be fair, objective, and effective, they may also be difficult to operate in practice. For instance, finding the right researchers willing to review the manuscripts in a relatively short time frame is getting more and more difficult for editors. Researchers are often sollicited, and their work, due to the blind review, is never credited.

On the other hand, the key elements of the open author-directed peer review model require authors to (1) solicit their own referees who should hold a PhD, (2) ask their referees to complete a standard review and sign a statement granting permission to acknowledge their endorsement for publication, and (3) submit their manuscript to the editorial team along with their referees’ endorsements for publication (Aarssen & Lortie, 2010). The editors then evaluate the manuscript and the peer review statement, and if suitable for publication, confirm the manuscript’s acceptance and reveal the reviewers’ names in the published article, which officially acknowledges the reviewers' work.

Aarssen, L.W., & Lortie, C.J. (2010). Ideas for judging merit in manuscripts and authors. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 28-34. doi: 10.4033/iee.2010.3.7.e's website is licenced under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence.