Discussion
{Working Notes to flesh out}
When the transparent peer review pilot was introduced at Wiley, researchers that submitted manuscripts to the journals offering transparent peer review were "opted-in" to transparent peer review unless they opted-out . This was to further encourage the uptake of transparency. Our findings show that researchers are indeed willing to embrace transparent peer review, with an average of 86% of authors remaining opted-in to transparent peer review across the 27 journals offering transparent peer review. (does Tony H mention this? contrast with the PLOS results)
Mention our 'opt-in' set up favours take up - higher than others e.g. PLOS. But this was a deliberate decision etc and justify.
- Any anecdotal reflections to add from OR survey and Elizabeth Matson 'voice of customer' survey?
- Reflect on flexibility i.e. we do allow authors to change their mind?
Comparison of data from the journals pre- and post- the introduction of transparent peer review with control journals for the same time period enabled us to determine if any of the effects we were seeing could be attributed solely to transparent peer review or if there were other factors involved.
We did not see any adverse effects in terms of submissions in introducing transparent peer review, we did not see a drop in submissions to either group of journals, in fact submissions increased.
The time taken to reach an initial decision and final decision did not get longer for journals once transparent peer review was introduced, in fact, both the journals operating transparent peer review and the control journals were faster.
- Reviewers don't seem to be effected by the model of peer review - they are not faster or slower for TPR (times to initial/final decision do not change).
- Change in editor behaviour - more decisions made directly by editors under TPR. Desk rejects?
- Number of revisions does not increase - so no additional work for authors under TPR.
- However, additional work for editors in terms of having to invite more reviewers. AND under TPR more reviewers do not complete their review?? -- but this is offset by increased accountability and recognition? Also this is well-known - BMC/BMJ studies.
- emphasis the value of peer review, in era or preprints etc.