. 2020 Mar 27;35(20):e138. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

Table 2. Comparative assessment of peer review innovations in relation to open access publishing features.

Peer review innovations	Openness	Anonymity	Accountability	Bias	Time	Incentive
	Review content made public	Editors and reviewers disclosed to authors	Author-reviewer interaction transparent	Editorial decisions made public	Reviewing time shortened	Recognition or credit given to reviewers
	Reviewers and authors known	Editors and reviewers disclosed to authors	Constructive criticisms increased	Editorial decisions made public	Delays or new reviews avoided	Recognition or credit given to reviewers
1) Pre-peer review commenting	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
: Informal commenting or discussion on publicly available pre-publication draft	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
2) Pre-publication peer review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
: Formal and editorially invited evaluation of research by selected experts in relevant field	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
3) Post-publication peer review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
: Formal and optionally invited evaluation of research by selected experts in relevant field after publication	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
4) Post-publication commenting	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
: Informal discussion of published research independent of any formal peer review	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
5) Collaborative review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
: Referees, editors, and external readers provide interactive comments leading to consensus decision and single set of revisions	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
6) Portable review	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes	Yes or No
: Authors pay a company (e.g., Rubriq) for standard single-blind review that they can submit with the paper to collaborating journals	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes or No	Yes	Yes or No
7) Recommendation services review	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No
: Post-publication evaluation and recommendation of significant articles, often through peer-nominated consortium	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No
8) Decoupled post-publication review	Yes or No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
: Addition of notes directly to highlighted sections of work which can be kept private or made public	Yes or No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
9) Cascading peer review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
: Rejections avoided by redirecting peer-reviewed but rejected papers to more suitable publication venue	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
10) Independent peer review	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
: Companies provide pre-submission peer review for a fee (e.g., Rubriq) or the fee is paid by the journal which publishes the offering (e.g., Peerage of Science)	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
11) Interactive peer review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No
: Reviewers interact online with authors and scientists for more open/collaborative review	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes or No