The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review

Main Article Content

James Oluwaseyi Hodonu-Wusu
A. Noorhidawati
A. Abrizah


The rationale of open peer review (OPR) is transparency as a general concept, where authors and reviewers’ identities are revealed and/or the reviews are published with the article. It is unclear whether there is an uptake for OPR from non-western researchers, given that there has been a geographical disparity in traditional peer review where non-western nations are under presented. As such, this study investigates the awareness, experiences, and attitudes of researchers in regard to OPR, which is part of a larger study that concentrated on the scholarly communication readiness of Malaysian researchers in open science. The data were gathered by means of a survey which obtained 135 responses from researchers based in five research universities in Malaysia. The main findings suggested that (a) attitudes towards OPR are reasonably positive with moderate levels of understanding and practices; (b) low awareness on open identities, open interactions and open reports traits of OPR; (c) a stronger levels of OPR experience amongst the sciences and younger researchers; and (d) the majority still have strong concerns about the transparency traits of OPR. The study concludes that OPR is not yet taking root among researchers from this emerging nation.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Hodonu-Wusu, J. O. ., A., N. ., & A., A. (2021). The cautious faculty: Malaysian university researchers’ awareness, experiences, and attitudes towards Open Peer Review. Malaysian Journal of Library &Amp; Information Science, 26(3), 57–76. Retrieved from


Abrizah A., Shah N.A.K. and Nicholas, D. 2019. Malaysian early career researchers on the ethics of scholarly publishing. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science Vol. 24, no. 1: 75-96. Available at: doi: 10.22452/mjlis.vol24no1.5.

Agha, R. 2017. Publishing peer review reports. Webinar: Transparency in Peer Review. Available at:

Besançon L., Rönnberg N., Löwgren J., Tennant, J.P. and Cooper, M. 2020. Open up: A survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5. Available at: doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z.

Bolam P. 2017. Transparent review at the European Journal of Neuroscience: experiences one year on. The Wiley Network. Available at:

Boughton S. 2013. Peer review under scrutiny. Blog Network. Available at:

Bowman J.D. 2014. Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Vol. 78, no. 10. Available at: doi: 10.5688/ajpe7810176.

Bravo G., Grimaldo F., López-Iñesta E., Mehmani, B. and Squazzoni, F. 2019. The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals. Natural Communication, Vol. 10, no. 322. Available at: doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08250-2.

Burley R. 2017. What might peer review look like in 2030?. Available at:

Campbell P. 2006. Nature peer review trial and debate. Nature. Available at:

Casnici N., Grimaldo F., Gilbert N. and Squazzoni F. 2017 Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: an empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 68, no. 7: 1763-1771. Available at: doi:10.1002/asi.23665.

Ford E. 2013. Defining and characterizing open peer review: a review of the literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 44, no. 4: 311-326. Available at: doi: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-001

FOSTER. 2017. Open science at the core of libraries. Available at:

Godlee F. 2002. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability and credit. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 287, no. 21. Available at: doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762.

Gravetter F.J. and Forzano L.B. 2009. Research methods for the behavioral sciences, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hachani S. 2015. Open peer review: Fast forward for a new science. Current Issues in Libraries, Information Science and Related Fields, Vol. 39: 115-141. Available at: doi: 10.1108/S0065-283020150000039012.

Helmer M., Schottdorf M., Neef A. and Battaglia, D. 2017. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. eLife, Vol. 6: e21718. Available at: doi:10.7554/eLife.21718.

Hodonu-Wusu J.O. 2018. Open science: a review on open peer review literature. Library Philosophy and Practice. 1874. Available at:

Hodonu-Wusu J.O., Abrizah A. and Noorhidawati A. 2020. Malaysian researchers on open data: the first national survey on awareness, practices and attitudes. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol. 25, no.2: 1-20. Available at: doi: 10.22452/mjlis.vol25no2.1.

Horbach S. and Halffman W.W. 2018. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, Vol. 3, no. 8. Available at: doi: 10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5.

Jamali H.R., Nicholas D., Herman E., Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Abrizah A., Rodríguez-Bravo B., Xu J., Świgon’ M., Polezhaeva T., and Watkinson A. 2020a. National comparisons of early career researchers’ scholarly communication attitudes and behaviours. Learned Publishing, Vol. 33, no. 4: 370-384. Available at: doi: 10.1002/leap.1313.

Jamali H.R., Nicholas D., Watkinson A., Abrizah A., Rodríguez-Bravo B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Xu J., Polezhaeva T., Herman E. and Świgon’ M. 2020b. Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: an international study. Learned Publishing, Vol. 33, no. 2: 142-52. Available at: doi:10.1002/leap.1283.

Kravitz D.J. and Baker C.I. 2011. Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Vol. 5, no. 55. Available at: doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055.

Krejcie R.V. and Morgan D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30, no. 10: 607-10. Available at: doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308.

McKiernan E., Bourne P., Brown C., Buck S., Kenall A., Lin J., McDougall D., Nosek B.A., Ram K., Soderberg C.K., Spies J.R., Thaney K., Updegrove A., Woo K.H., and Yakoni T. 2016. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife, Vol. 5: e16800. Available at: doi: 10.7554/eLife.16800.

Mulligan A., Hall L. and Raphael E. 2013. Peer Review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64: 132-161.

Nicholas D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Abrizah A., et al. 2019a. Open science from the standpoint of the new wave of researchers: views from the scholarly frontline. Information Services & Use, Vol. 39, no. 4: 369-74. Available at: doi: 10.3233/ISU-190069.

Nicholas D., Herman E., Jamali H.R., Abrizah A., Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Xu J., Rodríguez-Bravo B., Watkinson A., Polezhaeva T., and Świgon’ M. 2020. Millennial researchers in a metric-driven scholarly world: an international study. Research Evaluation, Vol. 29, no. 3: 263-74, Available at: doi: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa004.

Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Rodríguez-Bravo B., Xu J., Abrizah A. Świgon’ M., Clark, D. and Herman E. 2019b. So, are early career researchers the harbingers of change? Learned Publishing, Vol. 32, no. 3: 237-47. Available at: doi: 10.1002/leap.1232.

Nicholson J. and Alperin J.P. 2016. A brief survey on peer review in scholarly communication. The Winnower. Available at:

Pöschl U. 2012. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Vol. 6, no. 33. Available at:

Publons. 2018. Global state of peer review. Available at:

Rafferty A. E., Jimmieson N. L. and Armenakis A. A. 2013. Change readiness: a multilevel review. Journal of Management, Vol. 39, no. 1: 110-35. Available at: doi: 10.1177/0149206312457417.

Rath M. and Wang P. 2017. Open peer review in the era of open science: a pilot study of researchers' perception. In: ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 19-23 June 2017, pp.1-2. Available at: doi: 10.1109/JCDL.2017.7991608.

Reekers J. 2020. Open peer review: time for a closer look. BMC Blog Network. Available at:

Rodríguez-Bravo B., Nicholas D., Herman E. and Boukacem-Zeghmouri C., Watkinson, A., Xu, J., Abrizah, A. and Świgoń, M. 2017. Peer review: the experience and views of early career researchers. Learned Publishing, Vol. 30: 269-77. Available at: doi: 10.1002/leap.1111.

Ross-Hellauer T. 2017. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research, Vol. 6: 588. Available at: doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.

Ross-Hellauer T., Deppe A. and Schmidt B. 2017. Survey on open peer review: attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, no. 12: e0189311, Available at: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189311.

Ross-Hellauer T. and Görögh E. 2019. Guidelines for open peer review implementation. Research Integrity and Peer Review, Vol. 4, no. 4. Available at: doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0063-9.

Schmidt B., Ross-Hellauer T., van Edig X. and Moylan E.C. 2018. Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, Vol. 7: 969. Available at: doi: /10.12688/f1000research.15334.1

Segado-Boj F., Martín-Quevedo J. and Prieto-Gutiérrez J. J. 2018. Attitudes toward open access, open peer review, and altmetrics among contributors to Spanish scholarly journals. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 50, no. 1: 48-70. Available at: doi: 10.3138/jsp.23.

Singeh F.W., Abrizah A. and Karim N.H.A. 2013. What inhibits authors to self-archive in Open Access repositories? A Malaysian case. Information Development, Vol. 29, no. 1: 24–35. Available at: doi: 10.1177/0266666912450450.

Strickland N. H. 2015. Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback. Clinical Radiology, Vol. 70, no. 11: 1158–64. Available at: doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2015.06.091.

Taylor and Francis Group. 2015. Peer review in 2015: a global view. Available at:

van Rooyen S., Delamothe T. and Evans S.J. 2010. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, Vol. 341: c5729. Available at: doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5729.

van Rooyen S., Godlee F., Evans S., Black N. and Smith R. 1999. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, Vol. 318, no. 7175: 23-7. Available at: doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23.

Vitae European Researchers Framework. 2016. Vitae B10: early career researchers and employment challenges – learning from Italy and Germany. Available at:

Walker R. and Rocha da Silva P. 2015. Emerging trends in peer review: a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, Vol. 9, no. 169). Available at: doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00169.

Wang P., You S., Rath M., and Wolfram, D. 2016a. Open peer review in scientific publishing: a web mining study of PeerJ authors and reviewer. Journal of Data and Information Science, Vol. 1, no. 4: 60–80. Available at:

Wang W., Kong X., Zhang J., Chen Z., Xia F. and Wang X. 2016b. Editorial behaviors in peer review. SpringerPlus, Vol. 5, no. 1: 903. Available at: doi:10.1186/s40064-0162601-y.

Ware M. 2008. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives, London, England: Publishing Research Consortium. Available at:

Weiner B. 2009. A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, Vol, 4. no. 67: 9. Available at: content/pdf/1748-5908-4-67.pdf.

Wicherts J. M. 2016. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, no. 1: e0147913. Available at: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913.

Wierzbinski-Cross H. 2017. Peer review. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, Vol 33, no. 2: 102–4. Available at: doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000327.

Wilkinson J. 2017. Writing a peer review is a structured process that can be learned and improved – 12 steps to follow. LSE Impact Blog. Available at: review-is-a-structured-process-thatcan-be-learned-and-improved-12-steps-to-follow.

Williams A. E. 2017. F1000: an overview and evaluation. Information and Learning Sciences, Vol. 118, no. 7/8: 364-71. Available at: doi: 10.1108/ILS-06-2017-0065.

Williams A.E. 2018. Exploring the utility of a SWOT analysis. Information and Learning Sciences, Vol. 119, no. 11: 662-6. Available at: doi: 10.1108/ILS-09-2018-0094.

Wilson A. and Laskey N. 2003. Internet based marketing research: a serious alternative to traditional research methods? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21, no. 2: 79-84. Available at: doi: 10.1108/02634500310465380.

Wolfram D., Wang P., Hembree A., and Park, H. 2020. Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science. Scientometrics, Vol. 125: 1033–51. Available at: doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03488-4.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>