Reviewers from previous journal submissions

Did you just write a brilliant peer review for an economics (or social science, policy, etc.) journal? Your work should not be wasted, there should be a way to share your insights and get credit!

Consider transforming these insights into a public "independent evaluation" for The Unjournal. This will benefit the community and help make research better and more impactful. And we can share your work and provide you feedback. This will help you build a portfolio with The Unjournal, making it more likely we'll hire you for paid work and compensate you at the higher rate. And we offer prizes for the best work.

You can do this either anonymously or sign your name.

To say this in :

Journal peer review is critical for assessing and improving research, but too often these valuable discussions remain hidden behind closed doors. By publishing a version of your review, you can: (1) Amplify the impact of your reviewing efforts by contextualizing the research for a broader audience, (2) Facilitate more transparent academic discussions around the strengths and limitations of the work, (3) Get public recognition for your peer review contributions, which are often unseen and unrewarded (4) Reduce overall reviewing burdens by allowing your assessment to be reused, (5) Support a culture of open scholarship by modeling constructive feedback on public research

Considerations: The reviewer "owns the review", subject to constraints and norms

According to a COPE Discussion document: Who “owns” peer reviews (emphasis added)

While the depth of commentary may vary greatly among reviews, given the minimal thresholds set by copyright law, it can be presumed that most reviews meet the requirements for protection as an “original work of authorship”. As such, in the absence of an express transfer of copyright or a written agreement between the reviewer and publisher establishing the review as a “work for hire”, it may be assumed that, by law, the reviewer holds copyright to their reviewer comments and thus is entitled to share the review however the reviewer deems fit...

The COPE council notes precisely the benefits we are aiming to unlock. They mention an 'expectation of confidentiality' that seems incompletely specified.

For example, reviewers may wish to publish their reviews in order to demonstrate their expertise in a subject matter and to contribute to their careers as a researcher. Or they may see publication of their reviews as advancing discourse on the subject and thus acting for the benefit of science as a whole. Nevertheless, a peer reviewer’s comments are significantly different from many other works of authorship in that they are expressly solicited as a work product by a journal and—whatever the peer review model—are subject to an expectation of confidentiality. However, without an express agreement between the journal and the reviewer, it is questionable whether such obligation of confidentiality should be considered to apply only until a final decision is reached on the manuscript, or to extend indefinitely.

Permission and journals' constraints

Several journals explicitly agree that reviewers are welcome to publish the content of their reviews, with some important caveats. The Publish Your Reviews initiative gathered public statements from several journals and publishers confirming that they support reviewers posting their comments externally. However, they generally ask reviewers to remove any confidential information before sharing their reviews. This includes: the name of the journal, the publication recommendation (e.g., accept, revise, or reject), and any other details the journal or authors considered confidential, such as unpublished data.

For these journals, we are happy to accept and share/link the verbatim content as part of an independent Unjournal evaluation.

But even for journals that have not signed onto this, as the COPE mentioned Your peer review is your intellectual property, it is not owned by the journal!

There may be some terms and conditions you agreed to as part of submitting a referee report. Please consult these carefully.

However, you are still entitled to share your own expert opinions on publicly-shared research. You may want to rewrite the review somewhat. You should make it clear that it refers to the publicly-shared (working paper/preprint) version of the research, not the one the journal shared with you in confidence. As above, you should probably not mention the journal name, the decision, or any other sensitive information. You don't even need to mention that you did review the paper for a journal.

Even if a journal considers the specific review confidential, this doesn't prevent the reviewer from expressing their independent assessment elsewhere.

Make a difference

As an expert reviewer, you have unique insights that can improve the quality and impact of research. Making your assessment available through The Unjournal amplifies the reach and value of your efforts. You can publish evaluations under your name or remain anonymous.

Ready to make your peer reviews work harder for science? Consider submitting an independent evaluation, for recognition, rewards, and to improve research. Contact us anytime at [e-mail] for guidance... We look forward to unlocking your valuable insights!