Types of peer review

The three most common types of peer review are single-anonymized, double-anonymized, and open peer review. Peer review is constantly evolving. Over time, new models have developed, such as transparent, collaborative, and post-publication peer review. Read our helpful guide below to learn more about the types of peer review conducted at Wiley.

Single anonymized review

With single anonymized peer review, the author does not know who the reviewers are. This is the most common form of peer review among science journals.

Pros

Anonymity allows reviewers to be honest without fear of criticism from an author.
Knowing who the author is (and their affiliation) allows reviewers to use their knowledge of the author's previous research.

Cons

Knowledge of the author may overshadow the quality of the work, potentially leading to a lack of scrutiny, especially if it's the work of an author with a dazzling track record.
There is the potential for discrimination based on gender or nationality. Discrimination based on non-scientific criteria is unacceptable.

Double and triple anonymized review

With double-anonymized peer review, reviewers don't know the identity of authors, and vice versa. This is the most common form of peer review amongst social science and humanities journals. In triple-anonymized peer review, the identities of the author(s), editors, and reviewers are hidden.

Pros

Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the equation.
Authors and reviewers benefit from some level of protection against criticism.

Cons

Anonymity isn't guaranteed, as it could be fairly straightforward to discover the identity of the author (either because of the area of research, the references, or the writing style).
Some argue that knowledge of the author's identity helps the reviewer come to a more informed judgement, and that without this, the review suffers.

Open peer review

With open peer review, the identities of authors and the reviewers are known by all participants. There is a growing minority of journals using this form of peer review, but popularity among reviewers is yet to be proven. Some journals may also publish the reviews together with final published articles, so readers can see both the identity of the reviewers and their comments.

Pros

The transparency of open peer review encourages accountability and civility, generally improving the overall quality of the review and article.
Reviewers are more motivated to do a thorough job since their names and sometimes comments appear as part of the accepted, published article.

Cons

Some reviewers might refuse to review for a journal using an open system, due to concerns about being identified as the source of a negative review.
Reviewers could be reluctant to criticize the work of more senior researchers, especially if their career depends on them.

Transparent peer review

With transparent peer review, peer reviewer reports, authors’ responses, and editors’ decision letters are published alongside accepted articles. This process is still fully compatible with journals using single or double anonymized review . Authors are given the option to opt-out of transparent peer review during submission. For journals participating in Wiley’s Manuscript Transfer Program, transferred reviewer reports will not be published without authors' and reviewers' prior consent.

Learn more about our transparent peer review pilot.

Collaborative review

Collaborative review 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.

Pros

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.

Cons

There is a risk of losing the benefit of having two or more independent evaluations.
Collaboration between authors and reviewers also creates the risk of blurring the distinction between authoring and appraisal.

Post-publication review

With post publication review, the option for appraisal and revision of a paper continues—or occurs —after publication. This may take the form of a comments page or discussion forum alongside the published paper. Crucially, post- publication peer review does not exclude other forms of peer review and is usually in addition to, rather than instead of, pre-publication review.

Pros

This approach reflects the evolving nature of knowledge.
It gives the opportunity for papers to be corrected or improved.

Cons

Revising papers after publication is incompatible with the notion of the version of record, which seems integral to the current model of contextualizing new research through citation of previous literature.
Shortcomings and errors within published material have traditionally been addressed through corrections and errata, and through published discussion (e.g. letters to the editor).

Post-publication review

Pros

This approach reflects the evolving nature of knowledge.
It gives the opportunity for papers to be corrected or improved.

Cons

Revising papers after publication is incompatible with the notion of the version of record, which seems integral to the current model of contextualizing new research through citation of previous literature.
Shortcomings and errors within published material have traditionally been addressed through corrections and errata, and through published discussion (e.g. letters to the editor).

Transferrable peer review

Some of our journals participate in our refer and transfer program. If an author’s initial submission is not accepted, they may choose to transfer their manuscript to a more suitable journal. If the manuscript was peer reviewed, the reviewer reports (including the reviewer’s name, email, and review) will transfer to the new journal along with the manuscript files, to be considered by the new journal’s editor.