{"id":56973,"date":"2025-11-26T18:27:32","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T12:27:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/?p=56973"},"modified":"2026-03-31T14:55:55","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T08:55:55","slug":"transparent-peer-review-guide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/","title":{"rendered":"Peer Review in the Age of Open Science: Should We Move Toward Transparent Review Models?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!-- Introduction Section --><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/publication-support-services\/peer-review-process\" data-internallinksmanager029f6b8e52c=\"115\" title=\"Peer Review\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Peer review<\/a> remains the linchpin of scholarly publishing, yet the system\u2019s \u201cblack-box\u201d reputation is increasingly at odds with the transparency goals of open science. Recent publisher pilots and policy shifts including large-scale tests of <em>transparent peer review<\/em> and a move by flagship journals to publish peer\u2011review histories mean that journals, institutions, and researchers must decide whether and how to adopt more open review models. This article explains what transparent (or open) peer review is, why the shift matters, what the evidence says, how different transparent models work in practice, and practical steps journals and researchers can take if they decide to move toward greater transparency.<\/p>\n<p><!-- What is Transparent (Open) Peer Review? Section --><\/p>\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_74 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#What_is_transparent_open_peer_review\" >What is transparent (open) peer review?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#Why_consider_a_move_to_transparent_review\" >Why consider a move to transparent review?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#What_does_the_evidence_say\" >What does the evidence say?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#How_to_implement_transparent_review_practical_options_and_steps\" >How to implement transparent review: practical options and steps<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#Practical_tips_for_authors_and_reviewers\" >Practical tips for authors and reviewers<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#Common_pitfalls_and_how_to_avoid_them\" >Common pitfalls and how to avoid them<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#When_to_adopt_transparent_review\" >When to adopt transparent review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#What_to_measure_during_and_after_a_pilot\" >What to measure during and after a pilot<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#Examples_and_case_studies\" >Examples and case studies<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/transparent-peer-review-guide\/#Final_note\" >Final note<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_is_transparent_open_peer_review\"><\/span>What is transparent (open) peer review?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><em>Open peer review<\/em> is an umbrella term covering multiple practices that alter traditional anonymous review.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Traditional review models<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Single\u2011blind: reviewers know author identity; reviewers anonymous to readers.<\/li>\n<li>Double\u2011blind: reviewers and authors are mutually anonymized.<\/li>\n<li>Reports and decision letters stay confidential.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Transparent \/ open models<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Open reports: review reports, editor decisions, and author responses are published with the article (reviewer identity may remain anonymous).<\/li>\n<li>Open identities: reviewers\u2019 names are disclosed to authors and\/or readers.<\/li>\n<li>Open participation \/ post\u2011publication review: the community contributes reviews or comments on preprints or published versions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- Why Consider a Move to Transparent Review? Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Why_consider_a_move_to_transparent_review\"><\/span>Why consider a move to transparent review?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Accountability and trust:<\/strong> Publishing review reports and responses makes editorial choices and reviewer critiques visible to readers, which can increase trust in editorial decisions and help readers assess the robustness of claims. Recent publisher pilots frame transparency as a way to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wiley.com\/en-us\/network\/publishing\/research-publishing\/submission-peer-review\/progressing-towards-transparency-more-journals-join-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot\">\u201copen the black box\u201d<\/a> of evaluation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Reviewer recognition and credit:<\/strong> When review reports are <a href=\"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/news\/clarivate-analytics-expands-transparent-peer-review-pilot-with-wiley-to-new-titles\" class=\"broken_link\">citable<\/a> (for example with DOIs) and traceable to ORCID or reviewer\u2011recognition platforms, review work becomes visible scholarly contribution. Publishers that assign DOIs to peer\u2011review components do so to enable credit.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Training and reproducibility:<\/strong> Published review histories serve as educational resources for early\u2011career researchers and can document methodological or reporting gaps that were addressed during revision. Some journals and platforms (e.g., BMC, Nature portfolio titles) publish these files to support reproducibility and learning.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- What Does the Evidence Say? Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_does_the_evidence_say\"><\/span>What does the evidence say?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Growing but mixed evidence base:<\/strong> Systematic reviews and scoping updates show an expanding evidence base but persistent uncertainties about some outcomes (review quality, reviewer behavior, acceptance rates). A <a href=\"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/rev\/article\/doi\/10.1093\/reseval\/rvae004\/7603873\" class=\"broken_link\">study<\/a> indicates that evidence is incomplete and results vary by the specific open practice studied.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Stakeholder attitudes:<\/strong> Surveys show relatively strong support for publishing <em>reports<\/em> compared with revealing reviewer identities; many authors and editors see open reports as useful context.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Real\u2011world pilots:<\/strong> Publisher pilots provide early operational data. For example, in Wiley\u2019s Transparent Peer Review <a href=\"https:\/\/authorservices.wiley.com\/author-resources\/Journal-Authors\/open-research-policies\/open-practices\/index.html\">pilot<\/a> with Publons\/ScholarOne, 83% of authors in the Clinical Genetics pilot opted to publish the peer\u2011review history for accepted papers, while only ~19% of reviewers chose to sign their reports. These findings indicate author willingness to disclose review histories but reviewer reluctance to reveal identity in many fields.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Policy shifts at leading journals:<\/strong> In 2025, Nature transitioned from an opt\u2011in approach to a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.knowledgespeak.com\/news\/nature-adopts-a-universal-transparent-peer-review-for-all-new-research-submissions\">policy<\/a> in which peer\u2011review reports and author responses accompany newly published research articles (reviewer identities remain anonymous unless reviewers elect otherwise).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Caveats from trials:<\/strong> Randomized trials and experiments (BMJ, Nature trials of public comment) show mixed effects: some report no major change in review <em>quality<\/em> but increases in reviewer declination rates, and low participation in early public\u2011comment trials suggests incentives and discipline norms matter.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- How to Implement Transparent Review: Practical Options and Steps Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"How_to_implement_transparent_review_practical_options_and_steps\"><\/span>How to implement transparent review: practical options and steps<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3>For journals and publishers<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Start with a pilot and clear choice architecture: offer authors the option to <em>opt in<\/em> or <em>opt out<\/em> (or test automatic opt\u2011in with opt\u2011out), and monitor uptake, reviewer declination rates, and editorial workload. Wiley and other publishers used phased pilots to refine workflows.<\/li>\n<li>Preserve reviewer choice where possible: allow reviewers to remain anonymous or to sign reports voluntarily; consider disciplinary norms (some fields are more comfortable with signed review).<\/li>\n<li>Assign DOIs and integrate recognition: provide persistent identifiers for review reports and support reviewer recognition through ORCID and reviewer\u2011credit services.<\/li>\n<li>Create metadata and archiving workflows: make review content machine\u2011readable to enable secondary research and to support altmetrics and assessment. <a href=\"https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1812.01027\">Projects<\/a> aiming to annotate reviews for reuse highlight this need.<\/li>\n<li>Train editors and reviewers: provide guidance on tone, constructive criticism, and confidentiality, and on handling sensitive material (e.g., clinical data, dual\u2011use content).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>For institutions and funders<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Update assessment frameworks: recognize peer\u2011review activity (signed or anonymized) and incorporation of review reports in promotion and grant evaluations where appropriate.<\/li>\n<li>Support reviewer training and incentives: consider small honoraria, formal recognition, or reviewer\u2011development programs to broaden reviewer pools (the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.alpsp.org\/news-publications\/industry-news\/20180907publonsgspr\">Publons Global State of Peer Review<\/a> documents reviewer workload and geographic disparities).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- Practical Tips for Authors and Reviewers Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_tips_for_authors_and_reviewers\"><\/span>Practical tips for authors and reviewers<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3>Authors<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>When you opt into publishing the peer\u2011review file, prepare a concise author response and keep revision records clear &#8211; these materials become part of the public record and can demonstrate rigor.<\/li>\n<li>If concerned about misinterpretation, use your response to clarify how critiques were addressed, and note remaining limitations transparently.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Reviewers<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>If you sign reviews, focus on constructive, evidence\u2011based critique. Signed reviews can build reputation but may raise concerns for early\u2011career researchers; consider disclosing via a public reviewer profile (ORCID) rather than attaching name directly to the report if you want partial anonymity.<\/li>\n<li>If remaining anonymous while your report is published, ensure your report does not contain identifying or defamatory material and that conflicts of interest are declared.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Common_pitfalls_and_how_to_avoid_them\"><\/span>Common pitfalls and how to avoid them<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Low reviewer participation:<\/strong> plan for higher decline rates when identity disclosure is mandatory; mitigate by giving reviewers the option to remain anonymous and by recognizing review work formally.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Token transparency:<\/strong> publishing reports without curation or standards can confuse readers. Develop guidelines for what review files should include and how they will be linked to the article.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Inequitable impacts:<\/strong> junior researchers and reviewers from under\u2011represented regions may be disproportionately affected by identity disclosure; include safeguards and monitor differential.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- When to Adopt Transparent Review Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"When_to_adopt_transparent_review\"><\/span>When to adopt transparent review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Does your research community value openness and educational benefit? If so, an opt\u2011in or opt\u2011out open\u2011reports model may work.<\/li>\n<li>Are there legal or ethical constraints (patient data, sensitive security issues)? If yes, restrict the scope of what becomes public.<\/li>\n<li>Do you have editorial capacity to moderate published reports and redact sensitive content? If not, build that capacity before launching.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- What to Measure During and After a Pilot Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"What_to_measure_during_and_after_a_pilot\"><\/span>What to measure during and after a pilot<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Author opt\u2011in rate, reviewer sign\u2011up rate, reviewer decline rate, turnaround time, editorial workload and reader engagement metrics (downloads, citations of review files).<\/li>\n<li>Qualitative feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers; track any cases of abuse or harassment and have remediation paths.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- Examples and Case Studies Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Examples_and_case_studies\"><\/span>Examples and case studies<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Wiley\u2019s Transparent Peer Review <a href=\"https:\/\/www.wiley.com\/en-us\/network\/publishing\/research-publishing\/submission-peer-review\/progressing-towards-transparency-more-journals-join-our-transparent-peer-review-pilot\">pilot<\/a> (Clinical Genetics and other journals) reported high author opt\u2011in (\u224883% in an early phase) but relatively low rates of reviewers signing names (~19%), illustrating a common pattern of author willingness to publish review histories and reviewer reluctance to disclose identity.<\/li>\n<li>Nature moved from optional to broader <a href=\"https:\/\/www.knowledgespeak.com\/news\/nature-adopts-a-universal-transparent-peer-review-for-all-new-research-submissions\">mandatory publication of peer\u2011review files<\/a> for newly published research articles in 2025, reflecting a major publisher-level policy shift toward open reports.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com\/about\/\">BMC<\/a> titles and Copernicus journals have long published review histories and provide models for integrating review files with articles in a consistent, searchable way.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!-- Final Note Section --><\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_note\"><\/span>Final note<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Transparent peer review is not an all\u2011or\u2011nothing switch. The practical path for most journals and research communities is iterative: pilot an open\u2011reports option, collect quantitative and qualitative evidence, protect vulnerable participants, and scale practices that demonstrably improve trust, training, and reproducibility. The recent publisher pilots and policy changes make now a good moment to evaluate whether transparent review aligns with your community\u2019s norms and objectives and to design a model that balances openness with fairness and safety.<\/p>\n<p>If you are preparing to pilot transparent review or to publish peer\u2011review files alongside articles, consider Enago\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/editing-services\">manuscript\u2011editing<\/a> and bespoke publishing workflow solutions to refine author responses, clarify revision statements, and ensure published review histories are well\u2011structured and readable.<\/p>\n<div style=\"display:flex; gap:10px;justify-content:\" class=\"wps-pgfw-pdf-generate-icon__wrapper-frontend\">\n\t\t<a  href=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56973?action=genpdf&amp;id=56973\" class=\"pgfw-single-pdf-download-button\" ><img data-src=\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" title=\"Generate PDF\" style=\"width:auto; height:45px;\" src=\"data:image\/svg+xml;base64,PHN2ZyB3aWR0aD0iMSIgaGVpZ2h0PSIxIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcvMjAwMC9zdmciPjwvc3ZnPg==\" class=\"lazyload\"><\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Peer review remains the linchpin of scholarly publishing, yet the system\u2019s \u201cblack-box\u201d reputation is increasingly&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":56974,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1988,2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[1895],"class_list":["post-56973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-academic-writing"],"better_featured_image":{"id":56974,"alt_text":"Transparent Peer Review: Complete Guide for Journals & Researchers 2025","caption":"","description":"Explore transparent peer review models, evidence from publisher pilots, implementation strategies, and practical steps for journals and researchers adopting open review practices.","media_type":"image","media_details":{"width":910,"height":340,"file":"2025\/11\/Sami-EA-Blogs-Banner-910-x-340-px-8.jpg","filesize":270604,"sizes":{},"image_meta":{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"1","keywords":[]}},"post":56973,"source_url":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Sami-EA-Blogs-Banner-910-x-340-px-8.jpg"},"acf":{"faq_main_heading":"Frequently Asked Questions","faq_heading_one":"What is transparent peer review and how does it differ from traditional review?","faq_heading_two":"Do reviewers have to reveal their names in transparent peer review?","faq_heading_three":"What are the benefits of publishing peer review reports with articles?","faq_heading_four":"Will transparent peer review make it harder to find reviewers?","faq_heading_five":"Which major journals have adopted transparent peer review policies?","faq_heading_six":"Can peer review reports be cited and do they count for academic credit?","faq_description_one":"Transparent peer review publishes review reports, editor decisions, and author responses alongside articles, making the evaluation process visible. Unlike traditional single- or double-blind review where reports stay confidential, open models increase accountability and trust.","faq_description_two":"No, most transparent review models allow reviewers to remain anonymous while their reports are published. Reviewers can voluntarily sign their names, but identity disclosure is typically optional to protect junior researchers and encourage participation.","faq_description_three":"Published review reports increase accountability, provide training resources for early-career researchers, allow readers to assess research robustness, and give reviewers citable scholarly contributions that can be linked to ORCID profiles for academic recognition.","faq_description_four":"Evidence from publisher pilots shows mixed results. Some trials report increased reviewer decline rates when identity disclosure is mandatory, but models that keep reviewer anonymity optional maintain participation levels comparable to traditional review.","faq_description_five":"Nature transitioned to publishing peer review reports with all newly published research articles in 2025. BMC journals, Copernicus publications, and Wiley titles through transparent peer review pilots also publish review histories alongside accepted papers.","faq_description_six":"Yes, many publishers assign DOIs to peer review reports, making them citable scholarly outputs. These reports can be linked to ORCID profiles and recognized by reviewer credit platforms, helping reviewers gain formal recognition for their contributions."},"views":164,"single_webinar_page_date":null,"single_webinar_page_time":null,"session_agenda":null,"who_should_attend_this_session":null,"about_the_speaker_field":null,"co-webinar-sec":null,"co_webinar_sec_one":null,"speaker-name":null,"webinar-date":null,"webinar-time":null,"webinar-s-image":null,"custum_webinar_category":null,"authors":[{"term_id":1895,"user_id":4,"is_guest":0,"slug":"editor","display_name":"Enago Academy","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2ef4bc47f3ceaa56f5eb3b26f9520fad298ba36ede4f86315997ffb45db37a1f?s=96&d=identicon&r=g","author_category":"","user_url":"","last_name":"Academy","first_name":"Editor","job_title":"","description":"Enago Academy, the knowledge arm of Enago, offers comprehensive and up-to-date resources on academic research and scholarly publishing to all levels of scholarly professionals: students, researchers, editors, publishers, and academic societies. It is also a popular platform for networking, allowing researchers to learn, share, and discuss their experiences within their network and community. The team, which comprises subject matter experts, academicians, trainers, and technical project managers, are passionate about helping researchers at all levels establish a successful career, both within and outside academia."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56973"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56973\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56981,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56973\/revisions\/56981"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56973"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=56973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}