English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Open Peer-Review (OPR) is an “umbrella” term for a number of innovations in the peer-review process that aim to make traditional peer-review more transparent, inclusive, accountable and reliable. Although for almost 30 years there has been a lot of discussion in the academic community about the need of some form of openness in the peer-review procedure (1), OPR has started to expand more recently, generally encouraged by the Open Science movement that promotes increasing transparency and participation in scientific practices (2). OPR aims to open up a system traditionally closed in many ways: the identities of both author and reviewer can be revealed to each other; the manuscripts can be made immediately available online, before any official peer-review procedure; the reviewer reports can be published together with the articles; experts and the general public can be allowed to comment and contribute to the review process; the reviewers may be algorithmically determined and requests sent out automatically and so on (3). Many journals already run some form of OPR, though this is implemented differently and in different stages of the peer-review process. OPR can be preor postpublication, in fact, both pre-prints and published papers can be commented on; it can be “de-coupled”, when reviews are performed by different peer-review services, such as Peerage of Science, on request by authors before submission (4) and it can be “portable”, when peer-review comments about papers are passed from one journal to another, in journals of the same publisher (5). The debate on OPR application is growing faster, boosted by new technologies, open access models and new circumstances, like the COVID-19 pandemic. Today the reception of OPR is changing as the concepts of open interaction, open discussion and participation are perceived positively by a new generation of authors, editors and reviewers (6). And yet the attitudes in its regard can vary widely: despite the need for a change, the paper findings suggest that the debate on the future of peer-review is still ongoing. In this article the authors, who are members of the Editorial team of the Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità (the official Journal of the Italian National Institute of Health, Rome, Italy), analyse the different forms of OPR practiced by scholarly journals included in the JCR Public, Environmental and Occupational Health category. This is followed by a discussion of the implications of our findings for the future of OPR. Abstract The journals listed in the JCR Public, Environmental and Occupational Health category are examined by the authors in order to check how many of them practice some kind of Open Peer-Review (OPR). An overview of the different OPR methods identified is given: a variety of practices considered as OPR even though the number of journals using them is very small. Furthermore, the possible future evolution of OPR is examined.

Discussing the future of open peer-review: a survey of journals in the JCR Public, Environmental and Occupational Health category