By Elizabeth Moylan, Senior Manager, Research Integrity & Publishing Ethics, Wiley
This article was first published on the website of the Wiley Network on 26 July 2023.
Campbell Systematic Reviews is an open access journal under the editorial control of the Campbell Collaboration. The journal introduced transparent peer review earlier this year. We caught up with the Editor in Chief of the journal, Vivian Welch, to hear more about this initiative and other ways the journal is increasing openness in research.
What is transparent peer review and when did you decide to introduce it?
I like to think of transparent peer review (TPR) as advancing openness in the peer review process. Transparency in peer review means that if a paper is published, then readers can also see the peer reviewer reports, authors’ responses and editors’ decisions. Authors are offered the option of TPR when they submit to the journal and can opt-in if they want to. Reviewers also have the option to sign their reports or be anonymous, as they wish. The complete peer review history for each article will be freely available and hosted on a dedicated page on Clarivate, linked to from the “Open Research” section of the published article on Wiley Online Library. Each component of the peer review history will have a DOI and be fully citable. We introduced TPR in April 2023 and we are excited to see how the initiative goes and what we learn along the way.
Was there any particular motivation for introducing TPR?
We had been following the development of the TPR initiative at Wiley and after much consideration and discussion with the Editorial Board we decided to introduce it this year. From my own personal experience, I can offer up an analogy as to why I’m particularly supportive, as the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
As a young adult, I loved my Dad’s linguine pescatore, a dish he learned from a magazine recipe. It amazed me because it was so different from his usual meat and potatoes meals. After many years of making this dish, he offered to share with me the recipe and his notes about the recipe. And it was only on seeing the notes that I understood how he got the perfect combination of mussels, scallops, clams and shrimp in his sauce and the perfect al dente linguine every time. He kept notes on feedback when he served the recipe to others. This is the essence of transparency; understanding the feedback that led to the final product.
With published journal articles, TPR allows reviewers to compare their feedback with that of other reviewers, thus helping reviewers learn from others. It rewards reviewers contributions by creating a citable item. Others can also build on ideas or feedback mentioned in a reviewer report, just as much as results presented in the article itself, and cite them too. Furthermore, TPR often promotes constructive feedback for authors, people tend to back up what they say with evidence. Also, from an initial report into how the TPR initiative was working across a number of Wiley journals, TPR seems to be a popular choice with authors, 86% choosing TPR with no detrimental effect on decision times. It is also encouraging to see that the recent UK Parliamentary House of Commons Committee report into reproducibility and research integrity advocates for more transparency in the research publication process.
Are there other ways the Campbell Systematic Reviews is advancing openness in research?
In keeping with the FAIR principles for data management and stewardship we absolutely want to promote the findability, accessibility, interoperability and reuse (FAIR) of data where possible. The journal therefore has an ‘expects data sharing’ policy, which was adopted in September 2021. This means that submitted papers must have a statement indicating whether the data is available, and if so, how to access it, to encourage transparency in data sharing. However, as requirements around data sharing for systematic reviews, evidence, gap maps and methods papers in this research community progress to meet funding requirements it is likely this will change in future and we may consider adopting a mandating data sharing policy.* Watch this space!
The journal also welcomes Registered Reports and all research outputs are pre-registered ensuring that methodologies are peer reviewed at an early stage in the research process so that researchers can include reviewer feedback into their research plans.
I am proud to be a part of Campbell’s journey to an increasingly open journal, next time you contribute to a Campbell systematic review, as an author, referee or editor, I hope you will consider transparent peer review!
Please do get in touch if you have any questions or ideas for Campbell! Visit the journal Contact page to find out how to reach out.
If you want to introduce more transparency to the peer review process in your journal, please speak to your Wiley contact. Visit the open research hub in the Wiley Editor Community** for more resources on open access, open data and open practices and to keep up-to-date with the latest news on the topic. Unsure about any of the key publishing industry and Wiley terms in this and other resources? Check out this glossary for journal editors.
*A growing number of funders and institutions are now encouraging, and in many cases mandating, open data sharing for research they have funded. cOAlition S has stated that research data and other research outputs should be made “as open as possible and as closed as necessary” and the directive issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) in August 2022 directs all US federal funding agencies to make their research data publicly accessible stating that “scientific data underlying peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research should be made freely available and publicly accessible by default at the time of publication”. In addition, 194 UNESCO member states support the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science which calls for open data sharing among other open research artifacts. For an increasing number of authors, open data sharing will no longer be optional and journals will need to consider how best to facilitate access to the data that underpins the published results.
**The Wiley Editor Community (editors.wiley.com) is an online community platform where you can connect with peers, keep up to date with the latest news from Wiley, and explore resources (including our entire archive of webinars) designed to support you in your editorial role. Log in with your Wiley ID (the same username and password you use to access other Wiley sites, like Wiley Online Library and Wiley Journal Insights). If you don’t have a Wiley ID, please create one at the link to get started.