Types of peer review process and their specifics

Peer Review is a process allowing independent experts in a scientific field of research to evaluate and comment on manuscripts submitted to a journal. The results of peer review and the detailed comments of the reviewers help the authors to get feedback to improve their work and, importantly, allow the editor to assess the suitability of the work for publication.

The review process can take one of the following forms:

1. Single-blind review.  The authors of the manuscript are not informed of the identity and contact details of the reviewers.

Pros:

• anonymity allows the reviewer to be honest without fear of criticism from the author;
• knowing the author (and their affiliation), the reviewer can use their knowledge of the author's previous research.

Cons:

• knowing the author can overshadow the quality of the work - potentially leading to a lack of scrutiny, especially if it is the work of an author with a brilliant track record;
• possible discrimination on the basis of gender or nationality. Discrimination on non-scientific criteria is certainly unacceptable, but in the case of alleged nationality discrimination it is often conflated with discrimination on the grounds of poor English. A reviewer may receive too many manuscripts written in poor English from a particular country and subconsciously develop a particular negative sensitivity to anything from that country. For individual researchers, the best way to eliminate such discrimination is to make sure that the paper is written in as good English as possible, thereby showing respect for the time and effort that the reviewer will spend in evaluating it.

2. Double-blind review.  The identities of the reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other.

Pros:

• research is evaluated fairly without prejudice;
• the author and reviewer receive some protection from criticism.

Cons:

• anonymity is not guaranteed as the author's identity can be established quite easily (by research area, references or writing style);
• there is a perception that knowing the author's identity helps the reviewer to make a more informed judgement and that without it the quality of the review may suffer.

3. Open review. The names of both authors and reviewers are disclosed.

Pros:

• the transparency of open reviewing promotes greater accountability and civility, which generally improves the overall quality of the review and preparation of the paper;
• reviewers are more motivated to do a thorough work, as their names and sometimes their comments appear in the paper.

Cons:

• some reviewers may decline to review in a journal using an open system for fear of being named as the source of a negative review;
• reviewers may be reluctant to criticise the work of more senior researchers, especially if their careers depend on it. In smaller research communities and in some parts of the world, this can be a serious problem.

  4. Post-publication open review. Readers and reviewers can leave comments after the paper has been published.


Pros:

• this approach is believed to reflect the evolving nature of knowledge. It provides an opportunity to correct or improve papers.
  

Cons:

• reviewing papers after publication is incompatible with the notion of modification, which is integral to the current model of contextualising new research by citing previous literature.
  

Single-blind and double-blind peer review are the most common methods of peer review. Overall, the peer review process maintains the integrity of scientific communication. It ensures that published research is accurate, credible and meets the highest standards, and the quality of the journal depends, among other things, on the quality of the reviewers.