What is peer review?

Peer review in scholarly publishing is the process by which research output is subjected to scrutiny and critical assessment. The term ‘peer review’ was coined in the early 1970, and even though scholarly journals have existed since the 17th century, journal peer review as we often think of it today (inviting of external experts, i.e., peers, to evaluate manuscripts) is not the same as the reviewing processes that existed in the past. A good overview of the history of peer review can be found in articles of Moxam and Fyfe, Burnham, and Csiszar. We also recommend you study the EASE Science Editors’ Handbook (Section 4: Peer review).

Types of peer review

In 2020, a new taxonomy of peer review was proposed by the The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM). The taxonomy describes the different peer review models in four elements of the process, and in July 2023 has become the Peer Review Terminology Standard (ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023):

identity transparency,
who the reviewer interacts with,
what information about the review process is published, and
whether post-publication commenting takes place.

We present below only the aspect related to (1), and recommend you refer to the NISO standard for the rest. For more on the taxonomy you can also check the following video.

All identities visible – Reviewer visible to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor
Single anonymized – Reviewer masked to author, author visible to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor
Double anonymized – Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer and author visible to (decision-making) editor
Triple anonymized – Reviewer masked to author, author masked to reviewer, reviewer & author masked to (decision-making) editor

Evidence on differences between the types of peer review

Conclusive evidence of definite advantages of one type of peer review over another is lacking, and it is not known which type of peer review is better at detecting serious methodological deficiencies of papers, improving the overall quality of papers, or in preventing questionable research practices. Currently, research has indicated that anonymised types of peer review can be less biased, while open (all identities visible) can lead to more polite review reports. Interventions to improve peer review were highlighted in systematic reviews published in 2016 and 2021. (Note: Most of the research on peer review comes from analyses of peer review in Health Sciences, and it might not directly translate to other fields. We plan to update this information with new research and developments as they emerge.)

Useful resources for getting to know more about peer review

Peer Review: The Nuts & Bolts – A guide for early career researchers
- Updated version released in September 2021, this is an easy to understand guide from the Sense about Science team aimed for early career researchers.
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review
- The history of Peer Review as well as research on peer review are explored in this 2017 article.
The limitations to our understanding of peer review
- For those interested in a comprehensive exploration of research on peer review and questions future research should aim to answer
Peer Review Management — Challenges & Opportunities – WHITEPAPER
- A guide covering what an efficient peer review process looks like and what role technology has to play in the future of peer review.

Systematic reviews on peer review (chronologically ordered)

Manuscript Review:

Grant Review: