Open peer review (OPR), where review reports and reviewers’ identities are published alongside the articles, represents one of the last aspects of the open science movement to be widely embraced, although its adoption has been growing since the turn of the century. This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of OPR adoption, its early adopters and the implementation approaches used. Current bibliographic databases do not systematically index OPR journals, nor do the OPR journals clearly state their policies on open identities and open reports. Using various methods, we identified 617 OPR journals that published at least one article with open identities or open reports as of 2019 and analyzed their wide-ranging implementations to derive emerging OPR practices. The findings suggest that: (1) there has been a steady growth in OPR adoption since 2001, when 38 journals initially adopted OPR, with more rapid growth since 2017; (2) OPR adoption is most prevalent in medical and scientific disciplines (79.9%); (3) five publishers are responsible for 81% of the identified OPR journals; (4) early adopter publishers have implemented OPR in different ways, resulting in different levels of transparency. Across the variations in OPR implementations, two important factors define the degree of transparency: open identities and open reports. Open identities may include reviewer names and affiliation as well as credentials; open reports may include timestamped review histories consisting of referee reports and author rebuttals or a letter from the editor integrating reviewers’ comments. When and where open reports can be accessed are also important factors indicating the OPR transparency level. Publishers of optional OPR journals should add metric data in their annual status reports.

中文翻译：

---

开放同行评审：促进开放科学的透明度

开放同行评审 (OPR)，其中评审报告和评审者的身份与文章一起发布，代表了开放科学运动最后被广泛接受的方面之一，尽管自世纪之交以来它的采用率一直在增长。本研究首次对 OPR 的采用、早期采用者和所使用的实施方法进行了全面调查。当前的书目数据库没有系统地索引 OPR 期刊，OPR 期刊也没有明确说明其关于开放身份和开放报告的政策。我们使用各种方法确定了 617 家 OPR 期刊，它们在 2019 年至少发表了一篇具有开放身份或开放报告的文章，并分析了它们的广泛实施，以推导出新兴的 OPR 实践。研究结果表明：(1) 自2001年以来OPR采用率稳步增长，38个期刊初步采用OPR，2017年以来增长较快；(2) OPR 采用在医学和科学学科中最为普遍 (79.9%)；(3) 5家出版商负责81%的已识别OPR期刊；(4) 早期采用者出版商以不同的方式实施 OPR，导致不同程度的透明度。在 OPR 实施的各种变化中，两个重要因素定义了透明度：公开身份和公开报告。开放身份可能包括审阅者姓名和隶属关系以及凭据；公开报告可能包括带时间戳的审阅历史，包括审稿人报告和作者反驳或编辑的一封信，其中包含审稿人的评论。何时何地可以访问公开报告也是指示 OPR 透明度级别的重要因素。可选 OPR 期刊的出版商应在其年度状态报告中添加指标数据。