Is the review process of the journal open and transparent?

The transparency of academic journal peer review processes varies significantly across publications but predominantly remains confidential. Most journals maintain reviewer anonymity and limited author-editor correspondence disclosure as standard practice. Key factors shaping transparency include journal policy (single/double-blind vs open review), reviewer willingness to be identified, and institutional norms within disciplines. While confidentiality aims to ensure impartiality, it may obscure accountability for biased or delayed reviews. Some publishers now adopt transparent models like publishing review reports alongside articles, though implementation often requires reviewer consent. Authors should consult each journal's specific review policy guidelines. Transparent peer review enhances scholarly communication integrity by demystifying editorial decisions and surfacing review quality. Its adoption demonstrates institutional commitment to research reproducibility while allowing authors to contextualize feedback. Journals implementing such systems report improved reviewer accountability and perceived legitimacy within their academic communities.