Trust in research is not declared — it is built into how a publisher works. Today we are setting out two principles that guide Xpertia: transparent peer review and meaningful data availability.
Across scholarly publishing, the direction is clear. Nature made transparent peer review standard for new research submissions in June 2025. Major medical journals have required data-sharing statements since 2018. And the once-common phrase "data available on request" is now widely distrusted — one study of clinical trials found that almost none of the data promised "on request" was actually obtainable. The lesson is simple: trust signals only count when they are backed by something real.
Peer review you can see
We are committed to publishing peer-review reports and author responses alongside the articles they shaped, so readers can see the scrutiny a paper survived. Reviewer identities remain anonymous by default, with the option for reviewers to sign if they choose — an approach that protects candour, especially for early-career reviewers, while opening up the process.
Data availability that means it
We ask authors for data availability statements that name a trusted repository and a persistent identifier — not the vague "on request." Where data genuinely cannot be shared for legal or ethical reasons, we ask that the reason be stated plainly. The aim is the FAIR standard: data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable, kept as open as possible and as closed as necessary.
Built on shared standards
These principles are not house rules invented in isolation. They align with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME), the ICMJE recommendations, the FAIR data principles, and the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines. We are adopting them in phases as our journals grow, and we will report honestly on our progress.
This is what we mean by trust through structure: credibility that comes from how we are built, not from what we claim.
