{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,30]],"date-time":"2026-05-30T02:43:07Z","timestamp":1780108987896,"version":"3.54.0"},"reference-count":11,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,8]],"date-time":"2019-04-08T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1554681600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["OIR"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,8]]},"abstract":"Purpose<\/jats:title>The purpose of this paper is to assess what the challenges to open peer review (OPR) are, relative to traditional peer review (TPR).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title>By examining select issues within peer review, more broadly, and challenges within TPR, the effectiveness of OPR is questioned.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Findings<\/jats:title>Although OPR brings an aspect of transparency, by partially eliminating biases, fear of reprisals and of professional blow-back, either by authors who may be criticized or by competitors, limits the expansion of this peer review model, or its adoption as an industry-wide standard.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Originality\/value<\/jats:title>Open Science 2.0 boasts of greater openness and transparency and OPR is touted as one tool to achieve this. However, that potential is limited. This limitation needs to be recognized.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/oir-04-2018-0139","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,8,20]],"date-time":"2018-08-20T10:04:39Z","timestamp":1534759479000},"page":"197-200","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":32,"title":["Challenges to open peer review"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"43","author":[{"given":"Jaime A.","family":"Teixeira da Silva","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"140","reference":[{"issue":"3","key":"key2020092407241376600_ref001","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"947","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-016-9808-8","article-title":"What rights do authors have?","volume":"23","year":"2017","journal-title":"Science and Engineering Ethics"},{"key":"key2020092407241376600_ref002","article-title":"Open peer review by a selected-papers network","volume":"6","year":"2012","journal-title":"Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience"},{"key":"key2020092407241376600_ref003","article-title":"Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation","volume":"6","year":"2012","journal-title":"Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2020092407241376600_ref008","first-page":"13","article-title":"Science watchdogs","volume":"5","year":"2016","journal-title":"Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies"},{"key":"key2020092407241376600_ref009","article-title":"Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware!","volume":"2","year":"2017","journal-title":"AME Medical Journal"},{"key":"key2020092407241376600_ref005","article-title":"The ClarivateTM Analytics acquisition of Publons \u2013 an evolution or commodification of peer review?","year":"2018","journal-title":"Research Ethics"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2020092407241376600_ref006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"22","DOI":"10.1080\/08989621.2014.899909","article-title":"Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review","volume":"22","year":"2015","journal-title":"Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance"},{"issue":"3\/4","key":"key2020092407241376600_ref007","first-page":"203","article-title":"Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry","volume":"6","year":"2016","journal-title":"Ethics & Bioethics"},{"issue":"4","key":"key2020092407241376600_ref004","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1213","DOI":"10.1007\/s11948-016-9854-2","article-title":"Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior","volume":"23","year":"2017","journal-title":"Science and Engineering Ethics"},{"key":"key2020092407241376600_ref010","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"c5729","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.c5729","article-title":"Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial","volume":"341","year":"2010","journal-title":"British Medical Journal"},{"key":"key2020092407241376600_ref011","article-title":"Emerging trends in peer review \u2013 a survey","volume":"9","year":"2015","journal-title":"Frontiers in Neuroscience"}],"container-title":["Online Information Review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/OIR-04-2018-0139\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/OIR-04-2018-0139\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T22:42:44Z","timestamp":1753396964000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/oir\/article\/43\/2\/197-200\/315609"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,8]]},"references-count":11,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,8]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/OIR-04-2018-0139"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/oir-04-2018-0139","relation":{},"ISSN":["1468-4527"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1468-4527","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,8]]}}}