Research Guides: Scholarly Peer Review Guide: Models of Peer Review

Single Vs. Double Anonymized Peer Review

In single anonymized peer review, the author does not know the reviewer's identity, but the reviewer does know the author's identity.

In double anonymized peer review, the author and reviewer are both ignorant of the other's identity.

These have traditionally been called single blind and double blind peer review, and those terms will still be encountered, though many are moving away from the ableism of the term "blind."

Post-Publication Peer Review

Some platforms support peer review commentary on research after it is published, which can help to facilitate discussion about the quality, methodology, and findings of research.

As Bonnie Swoger writes on Scientific American's Information Culture blog, "In the early days of scientific societies (i.e. the 17th century), scientists would share their experimental results with each other at meetings, and receive feedback about their experiments in person. (The scientific journal wasn’t invented until later.) As the scientific community grew, it was impossible for everyone to be in the same room to hear about results, and so the amount of immediate feedback offered was limited to a few conferences or other gatherings. Recently, publishers, scientific societies and entrepreneurs have begun using the web to bring back the era of immediate feedback: so-called 'post-publication peer review.'"

Disambiguating post-publication peer review Ross-Hellauer, Tony. (14 Sep 2016) OpenAIRE [blog]. "What is 'post-publication peer review'? Peer review can have two senses, one specific and the other more general..."
Postpublication peer review: A crucial tool Peterson, Gregory Isaac (16 Mar 2018). Science, 359(6381): 1225-1226.
Reviewing post-publication peer review Knoepfler, P. (2015). Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics : TIG, 31(5), 221–223. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006
Post publication peer-review: Everything changes, and everything stays the same Swoger, Bonnie. (26 Mar 2014). Information Culture blog. Scientific American.
PubPeer PubPeer is an "online platform for post-publication peer review." Developed and maintained by the PubPeer Foundation, a California-registered public-benefit corporation with 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in the United States, whose overarching goal is "to improve the quality of scientific research by enabling innovative approaches for community interaction." Note: Both registered/signed and anonymous commenting are supported.
F1000 Research From site: "F1000Research is an Open Research publishing platform for life scientists, offering immediate publication of articles and other research outputs without editorial bias. All articles benefit from transparent refereeing and the inclusion of all source data." Incorporates features of both Open Peer Review and post-publication peer review, as well as open-access publishing.
ScienceOpen ScienceOPEN "invite[s] the whole scientific community to contribute to the review process, should they wish to," with "over 40 million article records all available for public, post-publication peer review." Users registered at ORCID with at least 5 publications assigned to their ORCID account may write a review of a paper; users registered at ORCID with at least 1 publication assigned to their ORCID account may comment on a paper.

Open or Signed Peer Review

Open Peer Review (OPR) is an evolving approach to the review of scholarly publications. Unlike blind and double-blind review systems, OPR makes both the author and reviewer identities known. This may be done during review or after an article is published; the specific implementation of OPR varies among journals, with some even providing platforms for non-referee public commentary on a published article.

"Signed review" is a related term sometimes used when the reviewer is identified.

Supporters believe this transparency may help to improve reviewer accountability, decrease editorial and reviewer bias, and increase speed of review. The approach of developmental peer review additionally treats open review as a way to help less experienced authors develop their skills in open dialog with reviewers.

Being identified may also help reviewers to receive more visibility for this professional service, especially with the rise of various tools for verifying and crediting reviewer activity.

F1000 Research, an open publishing platform in the life sciences, is just one example of OPR in action.

Be aware of OPR as an author, as well as when you may take on the reviewer's role--If you are given the choice of participating in this review model, you should know the potential benefits or risks that it may pose for you and your work.

What is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review Ross-Hellauer, T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 2; referees: 4 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6:588 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2)
Considering Developmental Peer Review College & Research Libraries Vol. 79, no. 6 (2018). This collaborative editorial discusses the use of open peer review (OPR) for the purposes of mentoring inexperienced researchers and helping them to develop their ideas and writing in a constructive way. Excerpt: "A typical criticism of OPR is that it breeds bias, and perhaps in some contexts it might, but it also flattens hierarchies and builds authorial voice and confidence."

Publishing Peer Review Comments

Should a reviewer's anonymous comments be published with an article as part of the scientific record? Some say yes.

Publish peer reviews
"Jessica K. Polka and colleagues call on journals to sign a pledge to make reviewers’ anonymous comments part of the official scientific record." 29 Aug 2018, on Nature.com