How reviewing works

Peer review of articles on Open Research Europe takes place after initial online publication, following the Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) model, in which research output is published first, with review and curation following afterwards. Once an article has passed the prepublication checks the article is published and expert reviewers are invited to review under ORE’s open and transparent peer review model. To improve the consistency of definitions and terminology in peer review, Open Research Europe uses the NISO standard terminology for peer review to summarise our peer review process as: 

Identity transparency: Peer review at Open Research Europe occurs on a published version of the article, with the authors’ full names and affiliations available to reviewers and readers. Peer reviewer names and affiliations are also published alongside their peer review reports and if multiple people write a peer review report, they can all be named publicly. 

Reviewer interactions: Peer reviewers are invited to review by the Open Research Europe team, who also provide support throughout the process. Reviewers are also able to read any existing peer review reports for an article. Authors must not contact peer reviewers directly, and reviewers should notify ORE’s editorial team if this occurs. 

Review information published: When a peer review report is submitted, it undergoes an editorial check to ensure that it meets the peer reviewer Code of Conduct. Subsequently, all peer review reports that pass this check are published alongside the article and include reviewers’ full names and affiliations. Each peer review report is assigned a DOI and is citable, independent of the article. 

Post publication commenting: Open Research Europe has a comment system that can be used for open academic discussion related to an article. Comments should focus on the scholarly content presented in the article with which they are associated. 

Authors should not approach reviewers about the peer review process independently, as this has the potential to influence and invalidate a review. 

Reviewer guidelines

All reviewers are invited to read our comprehensive reviewer guidelines as well as the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers before starting their report.

Reviewer criteria

When submitting an article, authors can suggest specific reviewers to be taken into consideration to assess that article. When choosing reviewers to suggest to the editors, the following criteria must be applied: 

  1. Expertise: reviewers must have demonstrated expertise in the key topics of the study presented and/or the methods used. They must have published at least three articles as a lead author on a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last three years. 

  1. Experience: reviewers must have reached a certain level of qualification (in the life sciences, usually a PhD or MD) and have a formal appointment at a recognised institution or organisation. 

  1. Independence: reviewers must not be working at the same institute as the authors, should not be close collaborators of the authors, or in other ways personally, financially, or professionally associated with them. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest (or lack of) before agreeing to assess an article and this statement is published publicly alongside their report. 

Article assessments

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the research is technically sound and of academic merit, that is:

  • whether the work is discussed appropriately in the context of the current literature;
  • whether suitable methods have been used;
  • whether sufficient information and source data have been provided to allow others to repeat every step of the work; and
  • whether the conclusions are supported by the findings.

In addition to their written review, reviewers also select one of three statuses:

  • Approved: No or only very minor changes are required. This means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate, results are presented accurately, and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data.
  • Revisions requested: The reviewer believes the article has academic merit but asks for a number of small changes or sometimes more significant revisions.
  • Not approved: The article has fundamental flaws that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. It requires crucial substantial revisions for it to become academically valid.

The approval status is shown on the article, together with the reviewer’s name and affiliation, and the detailed review supporting the status they selected.

If an author decides to revise the article to address the reviewers’ comments, all reviewers are invited to provide additional reviews on the new version. Reviewers are especially encouraged to re-review if they had originally given a ‘Revision requested’ or ‘Not approved’ status, as they are asked to assess if the work has been sufficiently improved to achieve a better approval status.

Volunteer to be a reviewer

Please contact our editorial team and let us know you are interested in reviewing. When contacting us, please attach a copy of your CV and complete this form, so that we can be sure you meet our reviewer criteria.

Volunteer now!