The peer review system, including the various types of peer review, is an important part of the academic publishing process. The main aim of the academic peer review process is to assess the quality of scholarly research and evaluate its suitability for publication in a particular journal. The different types of peer reviews are key to ensuring only the highest-quality research is published. Reviewers are required to offer relevant domain-related insights and feedback to help authors correct errors and address any gaps or missing information in order to improve their work.
In fact, in a Sense about Science survey on the effectiveness of the scholarly peer review system, an overwhelming 91% of the respondents agreed that this was invaluable as the final published article after different types of peer review was almost always a vastly improved version of their original submission.1 This statistic found support in a study by Taylor and Francis, which revealed that researchers rated the improvement on their articles as more than 8 on 10 after academic peer review.2
This improvement is valid because of the different types of peer review checks required. Peer reviewers not only assess whether the research topic has been clearly formulated, they determine the originality of the research piece, and ensure that the manuscript is logically structured and easy to read. Peer reviewers also check manuscripts for unsupported claims and incorrect interpretations and ensure that research is properly verified before being published. In doing so, they help maintain the stringent quality standards demanded by top academic and scientific journals.
Types of peer review in academic publishing
- Single-blind peer reviews: Single-blind peer reviews are the most traditional and frequently used types of peer review, where reviewers are aware of who the authors are, but authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. The anonymity makes it easier for reviewers to give feedback without having to worry about how the authors will react. However, this anonymity sometimes also proves to be a disadvantage as there is a risk of the academic peer review being unnecessarily critical. In this type of peer review, a reviewer’s feedback could sometimes be tinged with a conscious or unconscious bias against the author, perhaps because of where they come from or because they are considered a rival. Some authors are also of the view that reviewers undertaking single-blind scholarly peer review could create unnecessary delays so that they get a chance to publish first.3
- Double-blind peer reviews: Among the various types of peer review, double-blind peer reviews are the most common in the humanities and social sciences domain. It is one where both reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identities. The anonymity offered by this type of peer review is an advantage as it mitigates the risk of prejudice on the side of the reviewer. On the flip side, reviewers are sometimes able to identify who the author is as they may have heard of their research from others in the field of study and this may lead to unnecessarily biased feedback.4
- Open peer reviews: Like the name suggests, these types of peer reviews do not have an element of anonymity. Both the authors and the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. In this type of peer review, the reviewer’s feedback is usually published in the manuscript along with the author’s response to the reviewer. This, however, proves to be a disadvantage at times, as reviewers may not want their name and feedback to be published and may decline to participate – making it difficult for journals to find candidates for an academic peer review.4
- Transparent peer reviews: In this type of peer review, readers can access and read the exchange between authors In this type of peer review, readers can access and read the exchange between authors and reviewers. Reviewers are aware of who the authors are, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to reveal their identity by signing their report. Like open peer reviews, these types of peer reviews publish the reviewer’s feedback anonymously as part of the manuscript. This sometimes is a disadvantage as reviewers either hold-back on constructive criticism or offer watered-down versions to avoid getting into lengthy discussions.5
- Triple-blind peer reviews: Difficult to practically implement, triple-blind peer reviews are types of peer reviews where the identities of the author, reviewer, and editor are kept anonymous through the scholarly peer review process. While some believe that this type of peer review ensures proper feedback and minimizes the chance of conflict and bias, there are others who feel that it is logistically challenging to ensure the anonymity of all parties.
- Cascading peer reviews: More an administrative process, cascading peer reviews are sometimes suggested by journals when they reject a peer reviewed manuscript because the topic may not be high on their priority list. In this scenario, authors are advised to submit their manuscripts to another journal, usually one that is part of the publisher’s portfolio. This helps ensures the peer reviewed article does get published and read.
- Collaborative peer reviews: These types of peer reviews are often facilitated by journals that offer a common platform where the authors and reviewers can come together to discuss and evaluate the manuscript in detail. While the collaborative nature of this type of peer review ensures a well-structured and validated manuscript, it can prove to be time-consuming and unnecessarily drawn-out process.
- Third-party peer reviews: In third-party peer reviews, authors engage with independent reviewers and make necessary manuscript edits based on their feedback before submitting to journals. While this type of peer review may help decrease the chances of desk rejection, it could at times prove ineffective – especially if the peer reviewers are not aware of the target journal’s scope.
- Post-publication peer reviews: A comparatively new method adopted by open access publications, this type of peer review allows readers to publicly share their comments on published articles through a formalized, structured process. While reviewers are acknowledged and recognized for their feedback, the disadvantage here is that it can be difficult to moderate or control the comments that are published.
Today, as the number of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals continues to swell, academic peer review, irrespective of the specific method followed, has become more important for the academic publishing process than ever before. There are different types of peer reviews possible, and the next time you find yourself wondering what single-blind peer review or triple-blind peer review is, this article should be able to help you. And we hope that with the information provided in the article, you’ll be able to determine what to expect from the various types of peer reviews.
References
- Peer Review Survey 2009, Sense about Science. https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2009/
- Peer review in 2015 A global view, Taylor and Francis Group. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/peer-review-global-view/
- George, T. What Is Peer Review? | Types & Examples, Scribbr (December 17, 2021. Revised on July 8, 2022). https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/peer-review/
- Author Services, Taylor and Francis Group. What are the different types of peer review? https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/types-peer-review/
- Cosgrove, A., Flintoft, L., Trialing transparent peer review, National Center for Biotechnology Information (September 12, 2017) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5594446/
