Five Peer Review Models: A Guide
Identity is intrinsically linked to the peer review process due to the many models available, resulting in varying levels of anonymity for those involved in the process. This blog post examines five peer review models currently in use, outlining what they mean to authors, reviewers, and editors, and discusses the various benefits and consequences of each.
Unique anonymized peer review
We start with the most commonly used and established peer review model. In the single anonymous peer review, the identity of the author is known to both the publisher and the reviewers, with the identity of the reviewers hidden from the authors. It is the simplest model to implement and, because it is well established, it is easily understood by everyone involved in the process. Reviewers are protected and can feel comfortable being candid in their reviews if constructive negative feedback is required. However, authors are not protected from any conscious or unconscious biases that reviewers or editors might have, and decisions might be influenced by judgments based on their name, institution, or other identifying information.
Double anonymized peer review
Incorporating an additional layer of anonymity, the Double Anonymized Peer Review ensures that the identity of the author is withheld from reviewers and that the identities of reviewers are withheld from authors. The journal editor is the only person to monitor the names of authors and reviewers, protecting both authors from potential bias during the review process and reviewers from any potential repercussions of less favorable comments. This may be especially important for early-career researchers reviewing the work of senior researchers influential in the field.
Triple anonymized peer review
Journals using the triple anonymous peer review model ensure that the identities of the authors are hidden from the journal editor as well as from the reviewers, and that the identities of the reviewers are kept hidden from the authors. The editorial board controls all names of reviewers and authors, but not decision-makers.
Unfortunately, anonymity is not guaranteed in doubly or triply anonymized peer reviews: it can be easy for reviewers to guess the identity of an author if he or she works in a particularly specialized field, or even for authors to guess the identity of a reviewer based on their comments, and there is an additional burden on authors and editorial office staff to ensure that any work is sufficiently anonymized upfront before it is be subject to peer review.
Non-anonymized peer review
Also known as open peer review, in journals using this model, the identities of the author, reviewer, and publisher are known and shared among all parties; this model maximizes openness and transparency. Everyone involved in the process is encouraged to provide fair, justified and constructive feedback due to the public and open nature of the model, and reviewers can receive public recognition for the report they provided, through services such as than Publish, for example. This model can also facilitate additional dialogue between parties, for example in a collaborative peer review process where reviewers and editor discuss the article and provide a single list of agreed comments. This can be of great help to authors and avoids conflicting comments for improvement provided by individual reviewers and editors.
Transparent peer review
The transparent peer review model may vary depending on how individual journals choose to operate. The review process itself can be conducted using any of the methods described above (no, single, double, or triple anonymized), but once an article is accepted, the reviewer’s comments are posted with the manuscript. final. A combination of the original submission, author’s response to reviewers, and editor’s comments may also be posted, providing additional context for the article and demonstrating the positive improvements that have been made as a result of the review. peer review.
This model increases the transparency of the peer review system while allowing the identity of reviewers and authors to be protected prior to acceptance (depending on the review model used) and can be flexible depending on the priorities of the authors, reviewers and editors. Some journals using this model offer transparent peer review as an option but not mandatory; authors have the opportunity to publish reviewer comments they have received during the peer review process, and reviewers have the opportunity to reveal their identity and receive public recognition for their work on that particular manuscript .
While the Transparent Peer Review template can give authors and reviewers the flexibility to choose their own preferences, it can also add complexity for journals, authors, and reviewers. It is essential to ensure absolute clarity for all parties involved on how the peer review process will work prior to acceptance, and to establish clear policies on what exactly will be made available upon acceptance. publication of the final manuscript.
Oxford University Press publishes in a very wide range of disciplines in the arts and humanities, social sciences, law, science, technology and medicine. As such, we recognize that we cater to a diverse fatherhood, with preferences, standards and peer review expectations that differ by field. We therefore offer a range of peer review models in our journals, in order to best meet the needs and expectations of our authors. We continue to experiment with new innovations and carefully consider models that will benefit our authors and the research community at large.