The peer review is the standard procedure to review academic papers before they are published: other scholars, whose expertise is comparable to the authors', verify the articles are clear, correct and relevant. It has been part of the research publishing process for years and so it is now in Open Access, the new alternative method where all articles are freely accessible by anyone.

Although it has always worked pretty well, in Open Access it seems to cause more problems than usual and experts have been debating about it from the birth of O.A. itself.

One of the most discussed issues is that the peer review is often closed, meaning you can't see some crucial information like the reviewers identities or the corrections made, which is clearly conflicting with the Open Access own ideal of absolute openness.

Of course there can't be one responsible for this lack of openness, but we noticed how Springer, one of the greatest publishers and whose peer review is closed, retracts many more articles due to a "compromised peer review" than other major Open Access editors.

Should Springer open up their peer review they would directly benefit by saving some of the money spent on further reviews and retraction costs, and by obtaining increased trust from scholars. Also, Springer has the authority to lead the movement by example, thus significantly contributing towards full openness.

Feel free to join us in asking Springer to open up their peer review!

If you want to go deeper into Open Access and the peer review issue visit our website: www.inthenameofopenness.com