The Circé Network's Journals Hub has entrusted a research team with the production of a detailed report on new practices for evaluating scientific articles. It draws on existing scientific literature and reports on the results of a survey conducted among scholarly journals in Canada and Quebec. This survey made it possible to learn about the practices in force in the Canadian and Quebec scholarly publishing ecosystem and to gather perceptions related to evaluation practices and their potential openness.
Le report on open evaluation was launched on May 14, 2026 at the symposium Peer review in the context of open science at the Acfas congress. He was written by Alexandra Michaud (ULaval), Adrien Savard-Arseneault (UdeM) Lucía Céspedes (Scholar) and Arilys Jia (ULaval), under the scientific direction of Rene Audet (ULaval) and with the support of Vincent Lariviere (UdeM) and Anne-Marie Fortier (ULaval).
In this post, we offer an overview of the report which highlights the importance of issues related to evaluation for the legitimacy and integrity of research, but also for the future of editorial practices. In addition, you can find below a micro-summary of the report, available in French and English, as well as a poster. These short formats were produced to support the dissemination of the research findings to wider audiences:
- Microsynthesis on open evaluation (French)
- Microsynthesis on open assessment (English)
- Poster on open assessment
Rethinking evaluation practices
Peer review is a fundamental pillar of scientific production. Since the 1970s, the so-called "double-blind" model, in which neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other's identity, has become widely established. Aimed at limiting bias and conflicts of interest, this model is now the subject of recurring criticism. In this context, open peer review (open peer review) emerges as a promising avenue.
While double-blind peer review has long been seen as a guarantee of impartiality, several shortcomings are now well documented. In some cases, review reports can be unnecessarily biased, facilitated by anonymity. Moreover, in highly specialized fields, this anonymity is often illusory because it is relatively easy to identify authors from the content or references. Finally, removing all information about the authors can sometimes compromise a fair evaluation, particularly when the institutional context or the conditions under which the research is conducted play a role in the production and understanding of the results.
What is open assessment?
Open evaluation encompasses a set of practices inspired by the principles of open science. It aims to make the scientific publication process more transparent and presents itself as a critical response to certain contemporary trends: increasing productivism that can harm the quality of research, as well as a tendency towards the standardization of publication methods and formats.
Four possible practical applications
Open evaluation practices are linked to four components, each involving different actors or relationships.
- The disclosure of the evaluators' identities aims to increase the transparency of the editorial process. This is the most widespread form of open review.
- The publication of the reports devaluation consists of making the expert reviews available simultaneously with the article they examine, whether it is the full review, comments or a summary, with or without the names of the reviewers.
- Expanded participation rejects the principle of pre-selection of evaluators by the editorial team: it thus opens up to a more diverse range of participants have the opportunity to provide feedback on the manuscripts.
- L'authorization of interactions' between stakeholders aims to promote exchanges between authors and evaluators, as well as between evaluators. This method is most often implemented in conjunction with the disclosure of identities or the publication of reports.
Why adopt open assessment?
Several motivations may encourage scientific journals to experiment with or adopt open review practices:
- Increased transparency in the editorial process allows for a better understanding of how decisions are made. This helps to strengthen trust in journals and to provide greater clarity regarding evaluation criteria;
- Open evaluation promotes a collaborative and constructive dynamic between authors and evaluators, which can improve the overall quality of publications;
- Open evaluation acknowledges the work of the reviewer and values their participation in the article validation process.
Ultimately, open review allows the entire disciplinary community to be involved in the publication process.
How to implement open evaluation?
The adoption of open review can be gradual and flexible. For example, a journal may choose to experiment with certain practices on a specific issue, or even on a single article, before considering implementing them more broadly and systematically.
This transition, however, involves several technical adjustments. Journals must equip themselves with suitable tools to manage identities, track different versions of manuscripts, and offer public or semi-public comment sections, depending on the model chosen.
Beyond the technical aspects, open review leads to a redefinition of roles within the publishing process. The role of editor-in-chief evolves towards greater mediation and support. Reviewers and authors must also familiarize themselves with new practices. These transformations are disrupting long-established practices and require support from the scientific community. They can also give rise to tensions related to professional status and power dynamics within academia.
By placing transparency, collaboration and support at the heart of the editorial process, open evaluation invites us to rethink established practices and imagine forms of evaluation that would be more equitable but also more recognized.