Proceedings A gives authors and reviewers an option to choose between traditional and open peer review.
Traditional peer review is a relatively private affair, with the referee reports being seen by only a handful of individuals and the name of the referee being seen by even fewer. The move towards transparency in scientific publishing has led to a number of journals adopting a more open model.
Where authors opt for open peer review, Proceedings A will make the editorial process transparent for all accepted papers, by publishing reviewer reports, the substantive part of decision letter after review and the associated author responses alongside published articles. This will allow readers to better assess the published paper and provide post-publication comments (which will also be published). If the reviewers have opted to disclose their names this will be included too. Referee reports are made public under the CC-BY open access licence.
Authors will be able to choose on submission whether they want traditional or open peer review. Referees will be notified when we ask them to review if the authors have chosen open peer review. Referees will be given the option when completing the reviewer form to disclose their name or remain anonymous.
The main scenarios are as follows:
Author asks for open review and the reviewer opts to disclose name
Peer review report is published alongside published manuscript including reviewer’s name.
Author asks for open review, but the reviewer does not agree to disclose name
Peer review report published with accepted papers but referee remains anonymous
Author doesn’t ask to have open review, but the reviewer opts to disclose name
Reviewer name only disclosed to author (no publication of peer review report)
Neither author nor reviewer want open peer review
Traditional half-blind peer review takes place