Peer reviews are imperative for academic publishing as they safeguard the quality and reliability of the academic work. Recognizing the peer review process will also help researchers in navigating the submission process and making the right decision for their research. This article explores Single Blind Peer Review, Double Blind Peer Review, Open Peer Review, Post-Publication Review, and Collaborative Review. Each type of peer review is discussed in detail to include advantages, disadvantages, and commonly used practices. [1],[2]

Types of Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers

Journal Submission

Interesting topics

Types of Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers

1. Single Blind Peer Review

In a single blind peer review, the reviewers remain anonymous while the authors know the identity of the reviewers.

Advantages:

Reviewer anonymity: Reviewers can be candid without bias or punishment.
Potentially less harsh comments: Authors may feel comfortable being more critical since the reviewer is anonymous.

Disadvantages:

Reviewer bias: Reviewers may be affected by and/or favourably disposed to the author either by the author’s reputation, affiliations or more generally the author’s perceived legitimacy.
No opportunity for accountability: The anonymity of the reviewer makes it impossible for the author to hold them accountable for their criticisms and concerns.

2. Double Blind Peer Review

A double-blind peer review keeps both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities confidential. [3]

Advantages	Disadvantages
Reduced bias: Reviewers of submitted works may not be influenced by the authors’ reputation, institution, or name. More objective feedback: The peer review process will be fairer and less biased.	Challenges with anonymity: In some cases, the reviewer may be able to figure out the identity of the author via their writing style or citations. Slower process: The anonymity adds one more layer and can slow down the review process

3. Open Peer Review

In open peer review, there is transparency, with both authors and reviewers knowing one another’s identity, and not only publishing the review alongside the article.[4]

Advantages:

Transparency: Open review forces authors and reviewers to be accountable.
Better reviews: Because the reviews are made public, reviewers are encouraged to give more substantive comments.

Disadvantages:

Potential bias: Reviewers may hold back constructive feedback thinking there is a chance they will be identifiable.
Negative feedback: Authors may feel uncomfortable receiving bad feedback from identifiable reviewers.

4. Post-Publication Peer Review

In post-publication peer review, articles are published and subsequently reviewed by experts in the field.[5]

Advantages:

Faster dissemination of research: Articles are available to the public immediately, allowing faster mobility of data.
Ongoing feedback: Authors can receive ongoing feedback even after publication, enabling continual improvement of the article.

Disadvantages:

Issues of quality control: Articles may be published without errors that the editors might have caught in a traditional peer-review process.
Initial feedback is limited: The articles may reach the public unexamined without peer review.

5. Collaborative Peer Review

In collaborative peer review, reviewers work with authors to develop and improve the manuscript, typically over several working drafts and interactions.

Advantages	Disadvantages
More comprehensive feedback: Reviewers have the benefit of working with authors directly on how to enhance the manuscripts. Increased clarity: Collaborative conversations provide a clear understanding of the reviewer’s suggestions	Timeliness: Collaborative reviews take longer because the reviewer and author go through back-and-forth revisions. Subjectivity: It may be more difficult to include an entirely objective review, as the process is heavily collaborative

Conclusion

Each type of peer review has its pros and cons, and understanding these advantages and disadvantages will allow researchers to navigate the publication process better. The best peer review type for a researcher depends on their goals, field, and type of research. Each of the peer review types outlined above, whether single-blind, double-blind, open, or post-publication review, can ensure research meets the highest standards and gets the visibility that it deserves.

Types of Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers? Our academic consultants are here to guide you. [Get Expert Publishing Support] or [Schedule a Free Consultation]

References

Brown, L. M., David, E. A., Karamlou, T., & Nason, K. S. (2017). Reviewing scientific manuscripts: A comprehensive guide for peer reviewers. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 153(6), 1609–1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.12.067
Sedaghat, A. R., Bernal-Sprekelsen, M., Fokkens, W. J., Smith, T. L., Stewart, M. G., & Johnson, R. F. (2024). How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 9(3), e1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1266
Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold, S. S. (2016). Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 316(12), 1315–1316. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.11014
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 63. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063