Standard and Emerging Models of Peer Review Defined

Rigorous and impartial peer review is critical to upholding integrity and quality standards in scholarly research and is an integral part of the publishing process. While early forms of peer review began in Europe as far back as the 17th century, it only became more pronounced in the mid-to-late 20th century in which the term “peer review” was coined. After the end of World War II in the 1940’s, peer review emerged as a general practice with the introduction of the photocopier, which made it easier to distribute papers to experts within the same discipline. One of the pioneers in this area was the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in the late 1940’s, and adoption continued by other publications in the coming decades, including at Nature in 1964 and the Lancet in 1976.

With this growth, publishing and peer review practices have matured since its inception. Known as the “golden standard” for evaluating submitted research, peer review differs across publishers to suit their policies and preferences as well as cater to the ever-evolving needs of the scholarly community. It can be difficult to understand and assess the key differences between these forms of peer review, and some are often mistakenly used interchangeably. At a recent virtual user group meeting we defined standard and emerging models of peer review, with a high-level summary listed below.

 

SINGLE ANONYMIZED (BLIND) PEER REVIEW

The Author does not have information about the Reviewer, but the Reviewer is aware of the Author

 

DOUBLE ANONYMIZED (BLIND) PEER REVIEW

Neither the Author or Reviewer have information about one another

 

TRIPLE ANONYMIZED (BLIND) PEER REVIEW

Neither the Author or Reviewer have information about one another, but the Editor is also unaware of their identity

 

OPEN PEER REVIEW

The identities of the Author and Reviewer are known

 

TRANSPARENT PEER REVIEW

Reviews posted alongside the report, with the Reviewer choosing whether to make their identity known. Transparent review can be open, but that is not always the case

 

COLLABORATIVE PEER REVIEW: FLAVOR 1

Forum where the Author receives feedback from Reviewers and can address questions/concerns in real-time

 

COLLABORATIVE PEER REVIEW: FLAVOR 2

Forum where the Author receives feedback from Reviewers and can address questions/concerns in real-time

 

CROWD PEER REVIEW

Qualified Reviewers comment on as little (or as much) as they wish, but the sheer number of reviews gives Editors a comprehensive overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript