<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Colleagues,</div><div><br></div><div>There is an emerging practice in academic publishing known as "transparent peer review." I encountered it recently for the first time in our field when reviewing for a journal by a major publisher (I won't name the journal since the editors have not yet responded to my queries about the practice). In talking to colleagues about it, many had not heard about transparent peer review so I wanted to raise awareness about it and share some thoughts I have after reflecting on it.</div><div><br></div><div>If you are not familiar with transparent peer review, you can see an overview at these sites:</div><div>
<div>
<a href="https://publons.com/benefits/publishers/transparent-review" target="_blank">https://publons.com/benefits/publishers/transparent-review</a></div><div><br></div><div>
<a href="https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/transparent-peer-review.html" target="_blank">https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/transparent-peer-review.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>In brief, transparent peer review makes the full reports from peer reviewers public in a published format that is permanently connected to the published article so that readers can see both the article itself and all the peer review and editorial comments on it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>What strikes me about it are the wider sociocultural, sociopolitical, and psychological implications and consequences. At a time when we are only getting started addressing the challenges of global inequities in academic publishing, it is a worrying development. A number of journals in applied/educational linguistics have taken leading roles in improving equitable access to English-medium publishing. I worry that if so-called transparent peer review were to gain footing in our field, it would lead us in the wrong direction. It seems to me that the risks far outweigh any possible benefits.
<div><br></div><div>The risks I see are the following,
though there would likely be other unintended consequences as well:</div><div><br></div><div>(1)
Many peer reviewers will self-censor their review texts because the
readership of the review is public. A review becomes, in effect, an
online publication. Accordingly, many reviewers will write for a public
audience and not for the confidential audience of the editors and
authors. Authors, in turn, will be deprived of candid commentary that
will help improve their work.</div><div><br></div><div>(2) Related to
the point above, self-censorship among peer reviewers would do
disproportionate harm to scholars in countries/contexts who have access
to fewer academic resources, including reference materials as well as
training in English academic writing. An important role that peer
reviewers play in fostering global equity and publication access is
providing scholars from such contexts with thorough and constructive
reviews. Not meant for public consumption, such detailed reviews often
provide extensive constructive feedback about literature review scope,
research design, and data analysis because these authors need a deeper level of guidance
than they might have received in other ways. Such reviews are
more so a work product of the writing process than mere evaluation of submission
quality. They often lead to extensive further development and revision
where the final product ends up looking substantially different from an
earlier submission. When reviewers are not comfortable writing such
deep and constructive reviews because they would be made public,
scholars who need this support will not get it. This, in turn, will
result in favoring publications by scholars in academically privileged
contexts.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(3) Some peer reviewers may write
unvarnished peer reviews, whether anonymous or not, that can be
damaging both psychologically and professionally to authors. This is a
particular concern with respect to junior scholars for whom
the power relations with respect to (often more senior) peer reviewers
is especially inequitable. As experienced researchers, we know that there is
great variation in the tone of peer review texts, and it is not uncommon
to see blunt or strident statements or even mischaracterizations of
methods and epistemologies. Having such a peer review forever
associated with one's published article can do major damage to a researcher's professional reputations and sense of self as a scholar. It can be
harmful for mid-career scholars too, but those who have already
established their reputations and gained respect in the field would be
able to weather a harmfully framed review while a junior scholar just
starting their career might not. It would be similarly more harmful to
scholars from less academically privileged backgrounds for either
unvarnished critiques or work-product-style reviews as noted in the
point above to be made public.</div><div><br></div><div>(4) A further
implication of concern about publishing peer review reports is the
chilling effect it will have on researchers' willingness to submit papers.
There is already in many contexts around the world high stakes
associated with publishing in respected international journals. Having
coached scholars at various points in their careers in a variety of
countries, I have seen firsthand the psychological challenges that
follow from navigating the peer review process. Even receiving a
confidential review can be threatening to junior scholars' sense of
academic confidence, and it stifles their willingness to submit
manuscripts to journals. The psychological barrier that would follow
from a peer review report being forever attached in public to a
publication online would be paralyzing for many. This would be
especially true of scholars in many global contexts who already harbor
insecurities about English-medium publication and submitting to
international journals but are nonetheless under pressure from their
institutions to do so.</div><div><br></div><div>In sum, so-called "transparent" peer review poses many risks and ethical dilemmas with
which I am greatly troubled. I wonder if others have also encountered it in our field and what your experiences and thoughts are about it.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Francis</div><div><br></div></div></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div><font size="2"><b>Francis M. Hult, PhD, FRGS</b> </font><font size="2"><span>|</span></font><b> </b>Professor</div><div>Department of Education</div><div>University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)</div><div><br></div><div>Editor, <a href="https://www.springer.com/series/5894" target="_blank">Educational Linguistics Book Series</a> <br></div><div>Co-Editor, <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/view/serial/16644" target="_blank">Contributions to the Sociology of Language Book Series</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://education.umbc.edu/faculty-list/francis-m-hult/" target="_blank">Web Profile</a> <span>|</span> <a href="http://umbc.academia.edu/FrancisMHult" target="_blank">Academia.edu</a> | <a href="http://esol.umbc.edu/" target="_blank">TESOL@UMBC</a></div><div><br></div><div style="text-align:left"><img src="https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1fisFF2r5HmuH2StP__rWJ0Um428jss1K&revid=0B3gZQJj4wrwIcGR6Yzc5a1VuQ1NGUExQZkJpL0ZJb2xrUkgwPQ" width="62" height="96"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>