Difference between public and private review

The traditional peer review option is similar to the process followed by most standard journals, with one main difference. In traditional review, the work can be accessed privately by specific reviewers who are invited to provide feedback. Unlike the traditional approach, however, on RESEARCHERS.ONE it is the authors, not an editorial board, that choose whom to invite as reviewers. The rationale is that the author knows better than an editorial board who is qualified to provide valuable feedback. Also, since the reviewers’ feedback will not be used by an editor to make an accept/reject decision, there is no harm for this process being non-anonymous and transparent.

The public peer review option makes the article available publicly on the RESEARCHERS.ONE website so that anyone with access to the internet can read the work and any registered user can provide commentary and/or upload a review. Users will also have access to the comments and reports for other users. As for the traditional review option, since the reviewer feedback is used constructively by the authors to improve their work, and is not used to make an accept/reject decision, there is no harm to the peer review process being completely open and transparent.

Under either option, authors are free to use their discretion in how feedback is incorporated into their final published output. Authors are free to change the review status between traditional and public options as often as they would like, and also to put their work through as many rounds of review as they feel is necessary before publication. More on the RESEARCHERS.ONE philosophy of peer review can be found in The RESEARCHERS.ONE Mission.