Abstract
Scholarly publications often work to provide transparency of peer-review processes, posting policy information to their websites as suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Publishing. Yet this falls short in providing peer-review transparency. Using examples from an interview-based qualitative study, this article argues that scholarly publications should move from peer-review process transparency to a praxis of transparency in peer review. Praxis infers that values inform practices. Scholarly publications should therefore use clear communication practices in all matters of business, and bolster transparency efforts, delineating rights and responsibilities of all players in peer review. Moreover, the scholarly publishing community should offer improved and society-led referee and editor training, rather than leaving the commercial publishing industry to fill the gap which results in peer review as a service to industry’s needs – turning an efficient profit – and not the scholarly community’s needs for human-to-human discourse.
Highlights
Many years ago I happily received an acceptance notice for a submitted article, but I was quite taken aback; the journal accepted the article without revisions
Continued my scholarship, publishing, and service work to focus on open peer review, and achieved my tenure goal
Transparency of the peer-review process is just as much about clear and consistent communication as it is about posting information to a journal website
Summary
Publications often work to provide transparency of peer-review processes, posting policy information to their websites as suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Publishing. This falls short in providing peer-review transparency. Using examples from an interview-based qualitative study, this article argues that scholarly publications should move from peer-review process transparency to a praxis of transparency in peer review. Publications should use clear communication practices in all matters of business, and bolster transparency efforts, delineating rights and responsibilities of all players in peer review. The scholarly publishing community should offer improved and society-led referee and editor training, rather than leaving the commercial publishing industry to fill the gap which results in peer review as a service to industry’s needs – turning an efficient profit – and not the scholarly community’s needs for human-to-human discourse
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
