Reimagining Peer Review in Scholarly Publishing: From Blind to Open in the Digital Age

Peer review has served as the cornerstone of scholarly validation for centuries, and the academic publishing ecosystem is currently witnessing a critical transformation in how peer review is organized, conducted, and evaluated. Traditional blind peer review models were historically designed to ensure objectivity, yet they struggle to meet the transparency demands, reviewer recognition, and accountability requirements in the digital age. As part of this shift, alternative models such as Open Peer Review, collaborative evaluation, and post-publication commentary are becoming more visible and leading to changes in editorial policy, journal governance, and research integrity practices. These models promote openness and inclusivity, but they also raise questions about consistency, workload distribution, and the equitable treatment of authors and reviewers across disciplines. This perspective article assesses the implications of these evolving systems for scholarly publishing workflows, particularly in terms of reviewer accountability, policy design, and the need for clear standards to manage both human and AI-assisted evaluation. It also emphasizes the importance of reviewer education in sustaining fair, ethical, and high-quality assessment practices.