Peer review is a review system adopted by the academic and periodical circle to assess the scholarly merit of scientific and technological achievements. This system serves as a crucial foundation for enhancing academic quality, ensuring journal standards, and facilitating scholarly publication. The emergence of open science has significantly influenced global scientific research activities. As scientific and technological innovation and open science continue to evolve, open peer review has become increasingly integrated into the ecosystem of scientific research exchange, establishing itself as a significant evaluation model. The fundamental principle of open peer review involves transparency in paper authorship, reviewer identity, review documentation, and evaluation platforms to encourage broader participation. This transparency enhances review accountability, strengthens reviewer responsibility, and promotes equitable evaluation outcomes. However, the implementation of open peer review faces several challenges: scientific, technical, and medical (STM) journals encounter conflicts between developmental goals and practical implementation; authors face tensions between academic recognition and quantitative output requirements; and reviewers must balance fair evaluation with maintaining cutting -edge perspectives. This article, grounded in the principles of "enhancing peer review mechanisms and actively participating in global academic governance," presents strategies to address these challenges. It advocates for improved governmental planning, establishment of comprehensive open peer review policies, and development of systems for academic recognition and impartial expert evaluation.This enables the entire academic community to perceive the completeness and protection nature of the open peer review system, providing institutional guarantees for the implementation of open peer review. To facilitate this, the academic community should develop technological products to enhance the promotion of open peer review, improve the penalty mechanism to strengthen the academic recognition of authors, and refine the reward mechanism to strengthen the impartial evaluations of experts, thereby laying the foundation for the implementation of open peer review. The academic individuals should adhere to professional ethics, abide strictly the interests of all parties, and create an atmosphere for open peer review. Editors should adhere to ethical standardsto promote open peer review. Authors should adhere to academic integrity to uphold academic recognition. Reviewers should commit to fairness and objectivity in their evaluations. Only when the academic community establishes effective review and supervision mechanism, enforces ethical conduct among scholars, and improves the quality of open peer review, can a favorable ecosystem for open peer review be realized. This will ensure the fairness and effectiveness of the external review system and continuously promote the implementation of open peer review, thereby fully leveraging its role and functions. The findings of this study provide theoretical support for the implementation of open peer review in Chinese STM journals, and contribute to their evolution in alignment with the broader development of open science.