Peer Review Process

    Review Process

    Peer Review Process

    Single-blind peer review is the traditional method of review. In it, reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors don’t know the identity of reviewers. (In double-blind review, neither reviewers nor authors know who the other party is. And in open peer review, authors and reviewers are both visible to each other. ) If you’re planning to use a robust conference management system, it’ll let you hide reviewers' identities easily and allow them to leave anonymous comments for authors.
    Like any other form of peer review, there are advantages and disadvantages to single-blind.

    Keeping your reviewers anonymous allows them to critique work without being influenced by your authors. Authors can’t contact the reviewer since they don’t know who they are. This takes a considerable amount of pressure off your reviewers and allows them to judge research more objectively. And, because they know who the author is, they can use their knowledge of the author’s previous research to aid in their assessment. 

    The best peer review is honest and unflinching. And sometimes, this means shining a bright light on a work’s limitations so all can see them. But most people don’t want to put themselves in the firing line. Single-blind peer review eliminates this as a problem and enables the reviewer to be more honest without fear of public criticism.

    Transferable peer review

    This is a fairly new form of peer review which allows subject-related journals to transfer reviewed manuscripts between each other. Typically, an author submits their paper to a journal but after it has been reviewed the editors decide that although not suitable for their journal it is likely to be appropriate for a similar journal. The author is then given an option to transfer the manuscript to the other journal. It's important to note that transferring a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance in the other journal. If the author agrees to the transfer, all manuscript files, metadata, and reviewer report forms are sent to the receiving journal.

    One of the main benefits of this model is immediately providing the author with an alternative outlet for their work - potentially speeding up the publication process
    From an editorial perspective, where there is a group of journals part-owned by a society or publisher, it keeps the work within the 'family' of titles
    It reduces the burden on the community of reviewers

    Collaborative review

    This covers a broad variety of approaches in which a team of people work together to undertake the review. One format is to have two or more reviewers work together to review the paper, discuss their opinions and submit a unified report. Another approach is to have one or more reviewers collaborate with the author to improve the paper, until it reaches a publishable standard.
    It can feel more constructive and less restrictive than more traditional approaches to peer review, as it removes the barriers that silo authors and reviewers