Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023): Peer review: a process undergoing a required transformation

Open peer review: some considerations on the selection and management of reviewers

Andrea Capaccioni
University of Perugia

Published 2022-12-19


  • scientific communication,
  • peer review,
  • open peer review,
  • role of peer reviewers

How to Cite

Capaccioni, A. (2022). Open peer review: some considerations on the selection and management of reviewers. JLIS.It, 14(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-508


Open peer review (OPR) is a type of review that has long since made space alongside the more well-known single-blind and double-blind peer reviews. Despite this, we still do not have a shared definition by the scientific community and publishers. The purpose of this paper is to offer some reflections on the selection of reviewers in OPR, a process that in its current configuration is traced back to the 19th century. After a brief overview of the best-known definitions of open peer review, the paper continues with an analysis of some aspects of reviewer selection carried out with the help of data from a recent survey.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Abadal, Ernest e Lúcia Da-Silveira. 2020. “Open peer review: otro paso hacia la ciencia abierta por parte de las revistas científicas.” Anuario ThinkEPI 14. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2020.e14e02
  2. Armstrong, J. Scott. 1982. “Barriers to scientific contributions: the author's formula.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5:197-199, https://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011201
  3. Bianchi, Federico e Flaminio Squazzoni. 2022. “Can transparency undermine peer review? A simulation model of scientist behavior under open peer review.” Science and Public Policy scac027. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac027
  4. Cassella, Maria. 2010. “Social peer-review e scienze umane, ovvero 'della qualità nella Repubblica della scienza'.” JLIS.it 1 (1): 111–132. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-30.
  5. Cassella, Maria. 2018. “Strumenti e metodi di innovazione nel panorama dell’open science: l’open peer review.” AIB studi 58 (1): 95-107. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-11714.
  6. Csiszar, Alex. 2018. The Scientific Journal. Authorship and the politics of knowledge in the nineteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226553375.001.0001
  7. Fitzpatrick, Kathleen. 2011. Planned obsolescence. publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York: NYU Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1632/ade.150.41
  8. Fitzpatrick, Kathleen e Avi Santo. 2012. Open review, A study of contexts and practices. Report. https://mellon.org/media/filer_public/20/ff/20ff03e0-17b0-465b-ae82-1ed7c8cef362/mediacommons-open-review-white-paper-final.pdf.
  9. Ford, Emily. 2013. “Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature.” In Library Faculty publications and presentations. 1. http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/9815.
  10. Fraser, Nicholas, Liam Brierley, Gautam Dey, Jessica K Polka, Máté Pálfy, Federico Nanni, e Jonathon Alexis Coates. 2020. “Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic”. BioRxiv. 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.22.111294 . DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.22.111294
  11. Guerrini, Mauro, “Sua Maestà il revisore: alcune considerazioni sul processo di peer review all’interno della LIS.” AIB studi 61 (3):585-592. https://doi.org/10.2426/aibstudi-13328.
  12. Harnad, Stevan. 2000. “The invisible hand of peer review.” Exploit Interactive 5. https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/1646/1/nature2.html.
  13. Lee, Carole J., Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, e Blaise Cronin. 2013. “Bias in Peer Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 2–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
  14. McCormack, Nancy. 2009. “Peer review and legal publishing: What law librarians need to know about open, single-blind, and double-blind reviewing”. Law Library Journal 101:1, 59-70.
  15. O’Sullivan, Lydia, Lai Ma, e Peter Doran. 2021. “An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review.” Scholarly Assessment Reports 3(1). https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.26
  16. Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2017. “What is open peer review? A systematic review” [version 2; peer review: 4 approved]. F1000Research 6:588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  17. Schmidt Brigit, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Xenia van Edig, Elizabeth C. Moylan. 2018. “Ten considerations for open peer review” [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 7:969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
  18. Shotton, David. 2012. “The five stars of online journal articles-a framework for article evaluation.” D-Lib Magazine 18 (1-2). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2012-shotton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1045/january2012-shotton
  19. Spinak, Ernesto. 2018. “Sobre las veintidós definiciones de la revisión abierta por pares… y más”. SciELO en perspectiva. http://blog.scielo.org/es/2018/02/28/sobre-las-veintidos-definiciones-de-la-revision-abierta-por-pares-y-mas/
  20. Tennant, Jonathan P., Jonathan M. Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien C. Jacques, François Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren B. Collister, Christina K. Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin R. Berg, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Tony Ross-Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling , Daniel S. Katz, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza, Nazeefa Fatima, Marta Poblet, Marios Isaakidis, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Sébastien Renaut, Christopher R. Madan, Lisa Matthias, Jesper Nørgaard Kjær, Daniel Paul O'Donnell, Cameron Neylon, Sarah Kearns, Manojkumar Selvaraju, Julien Colomb. 2017. “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review” [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 6:1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.2
  21. UNESCO. 2015. Concepts of openness and open access: module 2. Paris: Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232207.
  22. UNESCO. 2021. Recommendation on open science, https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation
  23. Urbano Cristóbal, Sara Tafalla, Ángel Borrego, and Ernest Abadal. 2021. “Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands-on experience at EDICIC Iberian Meeting 2019”. Learned Publishing 34(4): 558-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1402 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1402
  24. Ware, Mark. 2008. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. London: Publishing Research Consortium. https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2015_fall/inls700_001/Readings/Ware2008-PRCPeerReview.pdf.