Correspondence to: Elizabeth Moylan (emoylan@wiley.com).

Introduction

While earlier peer review surveys have shown a preference for more traditional models of peer review, i.e., single-blind and double-blind peer review models \citep*{senseaboutscience2009}\citep*{francis2015}\citep*{prc2015}, more recent surveys across researcher communities have shown growing support for more openness and recognition in peer review, perhaps encouraged by growing support for open research initiatives more generally \citep{reviewers},  \citep*{senseaboutscience2019}\citep{2019}. 'Transparency in review' was the theme of Peer Review Week, 2017 \citep{meadows} and  Publons’ Global State of Peer Review also uncovered important trends regarding peer review practices, including a greater willingness among younger researchers to adopt transparency in peer review \citep{review}.  A transparent peer review workflow shows readers the process behind editorial decision-making, increases accountability, and helps recognize the work of editors and peer reviewers \citep{godlee2002},  \citep{Schmidt2018}
This September 2020, the theme of Peer Review Week is 'Trust' \cite{meadows2020}. Transparent peer review is, of course, a significant step towards bringing greater trust to research publishing and recognition to all involved in preparing and disseminating research. Making the peer review history visible and discoverable is key to improving the quality and efficiency of research communication and improving researchers' trust in a journal's processes while also potentially reducing fraud in peer review.  Some journals, particularly those in medical disciplines (for example, the BMC series and BMJ), have been offering variants of an open peer review model since 1999 \cite{hodges2020}\citep*{smith1999}. EMBO Press, one of Wiley’s publishing partners, introduced transparency into their processes in 2009 and their experience has been overwhelmingly positive \citep{pulverer2010}.  
In August 2018, two biomedical funders (Wellcome and Howard Hughes Medical Institute) and ASAPbio (a non-profit organisation encouraging innovation in publishing) advocated publishing peer review reports \citep{polka2018}. Their open letter in support of the benefits of peer review transparency has over 370 journal signatories and is still growing as journals are increasingly supportive about the benefits of introducing transparency \citep{letter2018}.  There are also guidelines for those wishing to implement transparent peer review workflows \citep*{gorogh2019} and recommendations for publishing peer review materials  \citep{al2018}. However, despite the growing interest in transparent peer review, publishers have been hindered in their ability to adopt new approaches by the limitations of existing workflows. 
In September 2018, Wiley announced the first cross-industry initiative to pilot an automated, scalable transparent peer review workflow, in collaboration with Publons and ScholarOne (part of Clarivate, Web of Science) \citep{clarivate}. The purpose was to enable journals to 'open up' peer review by introducing more transparency into the process. A vital part of this was the flexibility to enable authors to have the option of transparent peer review when they submit to a journal that can still otherwise offer more traditional models of peer review if authors decline transparency.  The way Wiley offers transparent peer review to authors is as an opt-out, i.e., authors are "opted-in" for transparent peer review unless they opt-out. An overview of the workflow is shown in Figure 1.