This article examines the historical origins of open peer review and its evolution. It has been shown that peer review is an integral part of the academic publishing process and a reliable system for monitoring the quality of research publications; it fosters constructive feedback for authors, formal recognition of reviewers' work, and higher-quality publications. The paper notes the absence of a generally accepted definition of «open peer review», which is predominantly understood as a set of practices and standards for its efficiency. It was found that certain aspects of open peer review actually derive from the earliest stages of the review process. It was noted that the modern system of formal expert review, and in particular open peer review, developed in the mid-20th century. It is noted that the current stage of open peer review’s development is linked to the concept of open science and the implementation of modern information and communication and web technologies in science communication, which have, in particular, facilitated the introduction of new open peer review models. It has been determined that a number of publishers, platforms, and journals have been established that have fostered the development of new methods for managing the review process, specifically facilitating its automation and the integration of dialogue and feedback between authors, reviewers, and editors. The latest models of open peer review have been analyzed, covering everything from the possibility of publishing reviews to fully transparent systems featuring «author-reviewer» discourse. The fact that there are so many ways to implement open peer review shows that there is no unified approach to defining the best and most effective methods. An integration of open peer review into the operations of digital platforms that manage academic publications, conferences, and scientific journals is highlighted, as it improves transparency and quality in these processes. The challenges and limitations of open peer review practices are analyzed, including biases, differences in implementation across disciplines, inconsistent quality control, ethical issues, practical implementation difficulties, and others.

1. Rennie, D. (2003). Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In F. Godlee & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1–13). BMJ Books. URL: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2011/07/rennie.pdf [In English].
2. Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Smith, R., Evans, S., & Black, N. (1998). The effect of blinding and masking on the quality of peer review: A randomized trial. JAMA, 280(3), 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.234 [In English].
3. Moxham, N., & Fyfe, A. (2018). The Royal Society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665–1965. The Historical Journal, 61(4), 863–889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334 [In English].
4. Mukherjee, P. (2026, January 26). Peer review through time: From the 17th century to the digital age. URL: https://cps.ca/en/blog-blogue/peer-review-through-time [In English].
5. Chapelle, F. H. (2014). The history and practice of peer review. Groundwater, 52, 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139 [In English].
6. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. JAMA, 263(10), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100023003 [In English].
7. Fyfe, A., McDougall-Waters, J., & Moxham, N. (2015). Notes and records: The Royal Society journal of the history of science. Notes and Records, 69, 227–239. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781800082328 [In English].
8. Roy, S. (2021). Peer review process – Its history and evolution. Science and Culture, 87, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.36094/sc.v87.2021.Peer_Review_Process.Roy.36 [In English].
9. Drozdz, J. A., & Ladomery, M. R. (2024). The peer review process: Past, present, and future. British Journal of Biomedical Science, 81, Article 12054. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054 [In English].
10. Baldwin, M. (2019, March). Peer review. In Encyclopedia of the History of Science. https://doi.org/10.34758/8f53-jd27 [In English].
11. Smith, R. (1999). Opening up peer review. BMJ, 318, 4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.4 [In English].
12. Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00011183 [In English].
13. Taphouse, M., & Cockshull, F. (2022, April 20). What is transparent peer review? OUPblog. URL: https://blog.oup.com/2022/09/what-is-transparent-peer-review/ [In English].
14. Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., et al. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6, Article 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3 [In English].
15. Corker, K. S., Waltman, L., & Coates, J. (2023). Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model of scholarly communication. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/h7swt [In English].
16. Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, Article 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 [In English].
17. Mandviwalla, M., Patnayakuni, R., & Schuff, D. (2008). Improving the peer review process with information technology. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.005 [In English].
18. Morales-Alarcón, C. H., Bodero-Poveda, E., Villa-Yánez, H. M., & Buñay-Guisñan, P. A. (2024). Blockchain and its application in the peer review of scientific works: A systematic review. Publications, 12 (4), Article 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040040 [In English].
19. Farias Fávaro, A., Marcelino, R., & Cechinel, C. (2024). Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: A systematic mapping of the literature. Data Technologies and Applications, 58(2), 214–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-01-2022-0010 [In English].
20. Herasymenko, A. H., Mazaraki, N. A., & Duhinets, H. V. (2019). Vidkryte retsenzuvannia yak instrument pidvyshchennia yakosti sotsialno-ekonomichnykh doslidzhen [Open peer review as a tool for improving the quality of socio-economic research]. Ekonomichnyi prostir, 141, 25–35. URL: https://prostir.pdaba.dp.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/4 [In Ukrainian].
21. McCormack, N. (2009). Peer review and legal publishing: What law librarians need to know about open, single-blind, and double-blind reviewing. Law Library Journal, 101, 59. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1339227 [In English].
22. Nauka Ukrainy. Kerivnytstvo dlia retsenzentiv [Guidelines for reviewers]. URL: https://nauka.gov.ua/information/kerivnytstvo-dlia-retsenzentiv/ [InUkrainian].
23. Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic, and societal impacts of open access: An evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, Article 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 [In English].
24. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Nazarovets, S. (2022). The role of Publons in the context of open peer review. Publishing Research Quarterly, 38, 760–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09914-0 [In English].
25. Csiszar, A. (2016). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature, 532, 306–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/532306a [In English].
26. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences [In English].
27. Chmyr, O. S. (2024). Rozvytok vidkrytoho retsenzuvannia u paradyhmi vidkrytoi nauky [Development of open peer review in the paradigm of open science]. Universytetski naukovi zapysky, 5(101), 76–97 [In Ukrainian].
28. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Interactive review process. URL: https://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html [In English].
29. Koonin, E. V., Landweber, L. F., & Lipman, D. J. (2006). A community experiment with fully open and published peer review. Biology Direct, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-1-1 [In English].
30. EMBO Press. Transparent process. URL: http://embopress.org/transparent-process/ [In English].
31. EMBO. (2019, September 16). A decade of transparent peer review. URL: https://www.embo.org/features/a-decade-of-transparent-peer-review/.
32. ScienceOpen. Shape the future of research publishing—Your way. URL: https://www.scienceopen.com/ [In English].
33. Enago Academy. (2023, May 29). The PubPub is open! Collaborative publishing for all. URL: https://www.enago.com/academy/the-pubpub-is-open-collaborative-publishing-for-all/ [In English].
34. ScienceOpen. Publishing services. URL: https://about.scienceopen.com/publishing-services/ [In English].
35. Physics Overflow. FAQ. URL: https://physicsoverflow.org/faq [In English].
36. For Better Science. URL: https://forbetterscience.com/ [In English].
37. Dappert, A., Farquhar, A., Kotarski, R., et al. (2017). Connecting the persistent identifier ecosystem: Building the technical and human infrastructure for open research. Data Science Journal, 16, 28. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-028 [In English].
38. Crossref. Introduction to peer reviews. URL: https://www.crossref.org/documentation/research-nexus/peer-reviews/ [In English].
39. PLOS. (2019). PLOS journals now open for published peer review. URL: https://theplosblog.plos.org/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/ [In English].
40. The Publication Plan. (2016, June 27). Peerage of science: A new approach to peer review. URL: https://thepublicationplan.com/2016/06/27/peerage-of-science-a-new-approach-to-peer-review/ [In English].
41. OPUS Project. (2023, July 21). Open journal systems: Empowering scholarly communication and publishing. URL: https://opusproject.eu/openscience-news/open-journal-systems-empowering-scholarly-communication-and-publishing/
42. Reviewer Hub. Welcome to the Open Review Management System (ORMS). URL: https://reviewerhub.org/ [In English].
43. Avramchuk, B.O., Zadvornyi, A. S., Yatsyshyn, A. V., et al. (2024). Metodychni rekomendatsii dlia vykonavtsiv naukovykh doslidzhen i rozrobok ta retsenzentiv shchodo zdiisnennia vidkrytoho vidpovidalnoho retsenzuvannia naukovykh doslidzhen [Methodological recommendations for researchers and reviewers on the implementation of open responsible peer review of scientific research]. Kyiv [In Ukrainian].
44. Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., et al. (2008). Double-blind review favors increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008 [In English].
45. Thelwall, M., Weigert, V., Allen, L., Nyakoojo, Z., & Papas, E. R. (2019). Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000 post-publication open peer review publishing model. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1911.03379 [In English].
46. Tomkins, A., Zhang, M., & Heavlin, W. D. (2017). Reviewer bias in single-versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707323114 [In English].
47. Ross, J. S., Gross, C. P., Desai, M. M., et al. (2006). Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA, 295(14), 1675–1680. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.14.1675 [In English].
48. Matsui, A., Chen, E., Wang, Y., & Ferrara, E. (2021). The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers. PeerJ, 9, e11999. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11999 [In English].
49. Fiialka, S., Trishchuk, O., & Figol, N. (2020). Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientific texts: Organizational and ethical aspects. Knowledge and Performance Management, 4(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.04(1).2020.03 [In English].
50. FEMS Microbiology. (2017, September 12). Open peer review – evolution and experimentation. URL: https://fems-microbiology.org/open-peer-review-evolution-experimentation/ [In English].