Case study: Implementation and impact of transparent peer review (TPR)

Insights > Research Impact > Case study: Implementation and impact of transparent peer review (TPR)

Reception area at a University

The European Journal of Higher Education (EJHE) implemented a transparent peer review (TPR) policy in April 2023, making it the first higher education journal to adopt this approach.

TPR is a process where the peer review reports are openly available alongside the published article. Reviewer identities remain anonymous.

This approach aims to enhance the accountability, trust, and openness of the peer review process. It allows readers to see the critical evaluations and revisions that shaped the published work, fostering greater understanding of the research's quality and integrity.

After 18 months of implementation, comprehensive surveys were conducted with authors and reviewers to evaluate perceptions, experiences, and impact of the policy. This report presents the findings and insights from these surveys to inform the academic community about the effectiveness of transparent peer review processes.

Key findings

People of various genders and ethnicities studying in a library.

Experience with TPR:

  • Most authors were satisfied with the quality, speed and decision making of the TPR process
  • Reviewers overwhelmingly do not want to be named on their reviews
  • TPR policy did not influence their attitude to writing the review for 86% of reviewers

Future intentions:

  • Most authors were very likely to submit to the journal again
  • 94% of authors said that the TPR policy would either not influence their decision, or would positively influence their decision to submit – only 2% said that the policy would negatively impact their decision
  • Nearly three quarters of reviewers said that the policy would not change their decision to review in future

Survey methodology

In April 2023, the European Journal of Higher Education pioneered a transparent peer review policy to demonstrate the rigor of its peer review process.

Under this policy, accepted papers are published alongside the full text of peer review reports as supplemental material, while maintaining reviewer anonymity. This initiative represents the first of its kind among higher education journals.

Survey methodology

Surveys were developed to collect feedback from authors and reviewers who engaged with the journal between April 2023 and February 2025.

The surveys aimed to:

  • Assess experiences with transparent peer review
  • Compare perceptions before and after engagement with the journal
  • Gather insights on motivations for publishing and reviewing
  • Evaluate satisfaction with the review process

The surveys were distributed via email in late February 2025 and remained open for 4 weeks, resulting in 52 responses from authors out of 1,212 contacted (4% response rate), and 37 responses from reviewers out of 243 contacted (15% response rate).

Awareness and prior experience

Prior experience with transparent peer review

Stacked bar chart that shows 62% of authors and 41% of reviewers had prior experience of TPR.

Figure 1: Author and reviewer prior experience of TPR

Figure 1: Author and reviewer prior experience of TPR

Perceptions of transparent peer review

Some reviewers and authors provided additional context to their view of TPR prior to engaging with the EJHE policy. This was characterized broadly into these themes:

Reviewers

  • Reviewers with a positive view were in favor of transparency in the decision-making process and felt it would increase accountability for reviewers and editors
  • Reviewers with a negative view (2%) indicated that they would prefer to keep the process confidential.

Authors

  • Authors with a positive view indicated that it would lead to increased quality of review; increased reviewer recognition; fairer reviews; because they want to champion open science
  • Authors with a negative view (1%) had previous poor experience of TPR

Author/reviewer perceptions before experience with TPR

Stacked bar chart that shows 46% of authors and 32% of reviewers had a positive perception of TPR before their experience using it.

Figure 2: Author/reviewer perceptions before experience with TPR

Figure 2: Author/reviewer perceptions before experience with TPR

Author satisfaction with review process after experience with TPR

Satisfaction with review process

Donut chart that shows 82% of authors were satisfied with review quality in TPR review process.

Figure 3: Author satisfaction with review quality in TPR review process

Figure 3: Author satisfaction with review quality in TPR review process

Donut chart that shows 76% of authors were satisfied with review speed in TPR review process.

Figure 4: Author satisfaction with review speed in TPR review process

Figure 4: Author satisfaction with review speed in TPR review process

Donut chart that shows 80% of authors were satisfied with decision making in TPR review process.

Figure 5: Author satisfaction with decision making in TPR review process

Figure 5: Author satisfaction with decision making in TPR review process

Comparison with previous review processes

Donut chart that shows 40% of authors say TPR is better than other peer reviews, 58% say there's no noticeable difference, and 2% say it's worse than other peer reviews.

Figure 6: Author comparison with previous review processes

Figure 6: Author comparison with previous review processes

Reviewer sentiments on transparency

The TPR policy does not include reviewer identities. When reviewers were asked if they would have liked their names to be included on the review report, 76% of reviewers indicated that they would not like their name to be included. They also indicated that their attitude to writing their review was not affected by having the review report available.

The majority of respondents said that they were confident in the review quality and/or that transparency wouldn’t change their approach. Other reasons given were that their feedback was constructive; they believed in transparency as a concept and the review tone was appropriate for sharing.

Preference for named reviews

Donut chart that shows 76% of reviewers would not like name included, 22% don't mind either way, and 3% would like name included.

Figure 7: Reviewers' preference for named reviews

Figure 7: Reviewers' preference for named reviews

Impact of transparency on review approach

Donut chart that shows 86% of authors had no change in approach and 14% changed their approach when using TPR.

Figure 8: Impact of TPR on reviewers' review approach

Figure 8: Impact of TPR on reviewers' review approach

Future intentions

Authors were asked of the likelihood that they would submit to the journal again. 73% reported that they were very likely to submit again.

The majority of reviewers indicated that the TPR policy would not impact their decision to review, as their decision was based on other factors such as topic of the paper and quality of the journal. Of the reviewers who indicated it would influence their decision, the majority were supportive of the TPR policy and would actively choose to review on that basis.

Authors' future submissions

Donut chart that shows 73% of authors are likely to submit to a journal again after using TPR.

Figure 9: Authors' likelihood to submit again after using TPR

Figure 9: Authors' likelihood to submit again after using TPR

Donut chart that shows that TPR had a positive influence on future submissions for 38% of authors and neutral influence for 56%.

Figure 10: Influence of TPR policy on authors' future submissions

Figure 10: Influence of TPR policy on authors' future submissions

Donut chart that shows that TPR had a positive influence on authors' willingness to review for 40% of authors and neutral influence for 56%.

Figure 11: Influence of TPR policy on authors' willingness to review

Figure 11: Influence of TPR policy on authors' willingness to review

Influence of TPR policy on reviewers' future decisions

Donut chart that shows that a TPR policy would influence decisions for 24% of reviewers.

Figure 12: Influence of TPR policy on reviewers' future decisions

Figure 12: Influence of TPR policy on reviewers' future decisions

Qualitative insights

Positive author perspectives on TPR:

  • "The reviewers' comments were clear and of high quality. This improved the final quality of the paper considerably."
  • "The tone of the reviews was consistently professional and supportive, even when critiquing weaknesses."
  • "The peer reviewers at EJHE provided exceptionally thorough, nuanced, and actionable feedback."

Conclusion

The implementation of transparent peer review at the European Journal of Higher Education has been generally well-received by both authors and reviewers.

The policy appears to have maintained or enhanced the quality of peer reviews while providing greater transparency in the publication process. The vast majority of authors and reviewers indicated that the TPR policy either positively influenced or had no negative impact on their decision to engage with the journal in the future.

The usage statistics of published peer review reports (on average each report has 141 views and 63 downloads) demonstrate significant interest from the academic community in accessing this additional layer of scholarly information, suggesting that transparent peer review serves a valuable function in the research ecosystem.

These findings provide valuable insights for journals considering the implementation of similar transparency initiatives in their peer review processes.

You might also like:

Insights and blogs

TopBuilt with Shorthand