At Open Palaeontology we aim to adopt best-practice policies in transparency and mitigation of unconscious biases in our editorial policies. We have opted for a fully open peer review process as default, in order to handle a range of publication types and preprints. Authors of non-preprinted written submissions can request double-blind peer review which will be unblinded on completion of the review process. We have favoured an open review process for transparency and practicality. We hope that having an open review process will encourage constructive discussion between reviewers and authors. 

For the double-blinded manuscripts should be carefully blinded prior to submission with the removal of potentially identifying information, including for example the institutions at which certain analyses were performed. Counterintuitively to many researchers, there is some evidence that it is very difficult to informally unblind, or identify the authors of, a properly blinded manuscript, with the real risk of accidental unblinding being authors leaving identifying information such as initials or institution names in the manuscript. We therefore encourage all reviewers of blinded manuscripts not to try to informally unblind them. 

If you are interested in signing up as a potential reviewer for Open Palaeontology, please fill out this Google Form. Please note that information submitted through this form is accessible to Open Palaeontology Steering Committee and Editorial Team members. If you want to be removed from the list for any reason, please contact us. 

Open Palaeontology policy on Selection of Reviewers

At Open Palaeontology we are committed to a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process that upholds the highest standards of academic integrity. Our editorial team dedicates significant effort to finding the right reviewers for each submission. We deeply value the time and expertise our reviewers contribute, as their thoughtful evaluations enhance the quality of published research. Our aim is to foster a fair and constructive peer review process that benefits authors, reviewers, the scientific community, and the progress of palaeontology as a discipline. 

To ensure manuscripts are reviewed by the most suitable experts, our Editorial Team has established six guiding principles when selecting reviewers. While we make every effort to follow these principles in selecting reviewers, the final assignments depend on the availability and willingness of relevant experts to review the submission manuscript at hand. People interested in reviewing work under consideration at Open Palaeontology are encouraged to sign up to our reviewer pool.

1. Matching expertise to manuscripts

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the key methods, theories, or subject areas covered in the manuscript.

2. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI)

We actively seek to engage reviewers from a diverse range of backgrounds, including gender, geographic location, institutional affiliation, and underrepresented groups in academia. Our goal is to promote an equitable and inclusive review process that reflects the breadth of the palaeontological community.

3. Career stage representation

We recognise the value of perspectives from researchers at different career stages. While senior scholars can provide field-wide expertise, early-career researchers often bring fresh insights and a deeper familiarity with recent methodologies. A balanced mix of established and emerging experts supports comprehensive manuscript evaluations. Additionally, senior researchers can often receive high volumes of review requests, making it difficult to accept all of them. By inviting a mix of senior, mid-career, and early-career experts, we improve the chances of securing timely and thorough reviews. We also encourage mentoring in the peer review process and welcome joint reviews from mentor and mentee; please contact the editorial team if you have any questions about this process. 

4. Reviewer suggestions, exclusions, and conflicts of interest

We welcome author suggestions for potential reviewers and encourage a brief justification for each suggestion. For example, “Dr X described the species that is the subject of this study” to help Handling Editors ensure the most appropriate expertise is sought. We ask that reviewer suggestions, where possible, follow our guidance on career stage and EDI considerations by recommending reviewers from a range of career stages and backgrounds (see points 2 and 3 for further details). 

We want to encourage collegial discussion, moderate academic rivalry, and ensure that a range of views are respectfully aired during the review process. For submissions presenting a strong opinion or controversial stance, we aim to include at least one reviewer with an opposing or neutral viewpoint to enhance the submission’s robustness.

We respect reasonable requests to exclude specific reviewers, though we cannot guarantee to follow authors’ requests. Reasonable requests may be due to conflicts of interest, a history of poor conduct (as per our Code of Conduct), or strongly held esoteric views on the subject of their submission, among other reasons. 

Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to, a close personal relationship (e.g. family), a close or managerial professional relationship (e.g. line manager or supervisor, or working at the same institution), or a financial interest in the study (e.g. a financial stake in commercial software used in the study). Potential conflicts of interest do not necessarily disqualify potential reviewers but should be declared to the Handling Editor. 

5. Past reviewer performance

Reviewers who have previously provided reviews that are not critical in a way that is thoughtful, constructive, respectful, and truthful may not be invited to review again. Open Palaeontology Editors reserve the right to reject submissions of reviewers who provide multiple and/or egregiously poor or unethical reviews. Open Palaeontology editors aim to work with reviewers to ensure that reviews are both critical and constructive. 

6. Reviewer availability and workload considerations

We recognise that reviewing is a voluntary commitment and researchers have limited time. If a reviewer declines, we are appreciative of alternative suggestions for reviewers with similar expertise.