Types of peer review
Peer review comes in different flavours. Each model has its own advantages and disadvantages, and often one type of review will be preferred by a subject community. Before submitting or reviewing a paper, you must therefore check which type is employed by the journal so you are aware of the respective rules. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal’s homepage or contact the editorial office directly.
Single anonymized review
In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymized review include:
●
Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions, asthe reviewers will not be influenced by potential criticism from the authors.
●
See AlsoWhat is a good impact factor? - PaperpileResearch Guides: Peer Review, Citation Practices, and Finding Scholarship: HomeAre the journals in PubMed peer-reviewed? Where can I find a list of peer-reviewed/refereed journals? · NLM Customer Support CenterResearch, Citation, & Class Guides: RECREATION 423 & 496: Research & Evaluation in Recreation and Leisure Studies: Google Scholar & Peer ReviewAuthors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.
●
Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.
Double anonymized review
Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.
●
Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, such as on author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history.
●
Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered based on the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in ourdouble-anonymized peer review guidelines.
Triple anonymized review
With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous to the author, and the author's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in a way to minimize any potential bias towards the authors. However, it should be noted that:
●
The complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable.
●
As with double anonymized review, there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly identify the author(s) from their writing style, subject matter, citation patterns, or other methodologies.
Open review
Open peer review is an umbrella term for many different models aiming at greater transparency during and after the peer review process. The most common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review process. Other types of open peer review consist of:
●
Publication of reviewers’ names on the article page
●
Publication of peer review reports alongside the article, either signed or anonymous
●
Publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) with authors’ and editors’ responses alongside the article
●
Publication of the paper after pre-checks and opening a discussion forum to the community who can then comment (named or anonymous) on the article
Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect (exampleopens in new tab/window).
Read more about the experiment
More transparent peer review
Transparency is the key to trust in peer review and as such there is an increasing call towards more transparency around the peer review process. In an effort to promote transparency in the peer review process, many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the handling editor of the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details about the number of reviewers who reviewed the article before acceptance. Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers about the editor’s decision and their peers’ recommendations.
