As we’ve discussed in a previous blog post, peer review plays a vital role in scholarly communication as it is the means by which research is validated within the wider community.

Since this week is Peer Review Week, we wanted to dive into the concept of co-reviewing, as well as exploring this year’s theme of ‘Identity in Peer Review’.

With peer review, experts in a field review the work of other researchers to assess whether it can be considered academically or scientifically valid. At Open Research Europe (ORE), we also offer the option to co-review, i.e. when two or more academic experts collaborate on a peer review report by sharing their combined insights into the strengths and weaknesses of an article.

ORE publishes research from a variety of scholars, spanning across multiple disciplines. Co-reviewing is especially useful for interdisciplinary papers that combine different methodologies or types of academic expertise. Given how collaborative research projects are, it is natural that reviewers would want to combine their expertise when reviewing a paper as well.

Whilst peer review is a central pillar of scholarly communication and seen by many academics as a key part of their work, it often competes with teaching and other research commitments. Co-reviewing allows reviewers to share the responsibility of peer review, thereby saving time. This is also helpful for early career researchers (ECRs) who gain reviewing experience through co-reviewing, whilst collaborating with more senior researchers.

“It was our pleasure to work with Open Research Europe. Being an open access platform, it indeed paves the way for researchers and academics to know and engage with recent trends and debates in their area without having to worry about access. The article submission and the review process were hassle free and therefore easier for researchers to publish. The availability of the reviewers’ comments for the author/readers is a great idea, that brings in much needed accountability and transparency”. – Barath Nataraj and Sowmya Dechamma C. C, who recently submitted a co-reviewed peer report.

How early career researchers benefit

The open peer review model at ORE helps early career researchers by giving them credit for their work whilst developing a key academic skill – the ability and confidence to assess the research of other scholars.

ECRs often have their first reviewing experience when reviewing alongside their supervisors or principal investigators. We favour this approach at Open Research Europe as it allows developing scholars to receive first-hand experience of the peer review process whilst working alongside an authority in the field.

Whilst co-reviewing allows ECRs to learn the useful skill of producing a constructive and informative peer report, recent studies have shown that in a traditional publishing model many ECRs do not receive credit for this sort of work. Our open peer review model avoids this practice of ghost-writing by ensuring all reviewers are given full credit for their work. All reviews on Open Research Europe are published together with the names of reviewers, their institutional affiliations, and statements of expertise.

If an early career researcher spots a paper they would be qualified to review on ORE, they can volunteer to review alongside their more experienced colleagues. We have explicit and clear reviewer criteria which allow ECRs to know the credentials that their senior reviewing partners are expected to have. By actively encouraging co-reviewing, the open peer review model meets recent calls from ECRs for unambiguous support of attribution for their reviews.

Identity in Peer Review

As mentioned, this year’s Peer Review Week theme is ‘Identity in Peer Review’. The peer review model at Open Research Europe already acknowledges and supports the benefit of having reviewer identities visible.

There are several benefits to having the names and affiliations published alongside a review or co-review:

• It allows reviewers to receive appropriate credit for their work
• It demonstrates their expertise in a specific topic
• Co-review reports show that the reviewer is an active participant in the scholarly community and is open to collaboration
• Co-reviewers can also see the tangible impact of their reviews (which will receive a Digital Object Identifier), making them visual and citable scholarly contributions.
• As well as improving the standard of research through the peer review process, reviewers themselves may benefit from being linked to their reviews which could form the basis of future research

For more information, view our latest resources about peer review.