What Does It Mean When a Research Report Undergoes a Blind Review for a Journal

Types of peer review

The three near common types of peer review are unmarried blind, double blind, and open peer review. Overtime, new models have developed such as transparent, collaborative, and post publication peer review, which are key variations from the standard arroyo. Peer review is constantly evolving, with new models and changes to traditional models being experimented with regularly. You can find the peer review policies for individual Wiley journals hither.

Here is a simplified guide to the different models of peer review:

Single blind	Author doesn't know the identiy of the reviewer.
Double blind	Reviewer doesn't know the identity of the writer, and vice-versa.
Open Peer review	The identity of the author and the reviewer is known past all participants, during or later the review procedure.
Transparent Peer review	Review report is posted with the published article. Reviewer tin cull if they want to share their identity.
Collaborative	Ii or more reviewers work together to submit a unified study. OR Author revises manuscript nether the supervision of one or more reviewers.
Mail service publication	Review solicited or unsolicited, of a published paper. Does not exclude other forms of peer review.

Delight select a peer review style for more details:

Single blind review

In this blazon of peer review the author does not know who the reviewers are. This is the most common form of peer review among science journals.

Pros

• The anonymity allows the reviewer to be honest without fear of criticism from an author
• Knowing who the author is (and their affiliation) allows the reviewer to use their knowledge of the author'south previous inquiry

Cons

• Knowledge of the author may overshadow the quality of the work - potentially leading to a lack of scrutiny, especially if information technology'south the work of an author with a dazzling rail record
• At that place is the potential for discrimination based on gender or nationality. Bigotry based on non-scientific criteria is clearly unacceptable, but in the case of perceived bigotry on the footing of nationality information technology is ofttimes conflated with discrimination on the ground of bad English language. A reviewer might receive also many manuscripts written in bad English from a particular country and might subconsciously develop a item negative sensitivity to anything from that state. For individual researchers, the best style to dominion out this kind of discrimination is to make sure that your article is written in the best possible English, thereby demonstrating sensitivity for the time and effort that a reviewer will expend on assessing it.

.

Double bullheaded review

In this type of peer review the reviewers don't know the identity of authors, and vice versa. This is the most common form of peer review amid social science and humanities journals.

Pros

• Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the equation
• Author and reviewer benefit from some level of protection against criticism

Cons

• Anonymity isn't guaranteed, every bit it could exist fairly straightforward to discover the identity of the author (either considering of the area of research, the references or the writing style)
• Some argue that cognition of the writer's identity helps the reviewer come to a more than informed judgement - and that without this the review suffers

.

Open peer review

The identity of the author and the reviewers are known by all participants. There is a growing minority of journals using this course of peer review just popularity amidst reviewers is yet to be proven. Some journals may likewise publish the reviews together with concluding articles, and then readers see both the identity of the reviewers and their comments. This is only the case, however, with accepted articles.

Pros

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

Cons

• Some reviewers might pass up to review for a journal using an open system, due to concerns about being identified equally the source of a negative review
• Reviewers could exist reluctant to criticize the piece of work of more senior researchers - especially if their career depends on them. In smaller research communities and in some regions of the world this could exist a significant problem

Transparent peer review

With transparent peer review, peer reviewers' reports, authors' responses, and editors' decision letters are published alongside the accustomed articles. This procedure is still fully compatible with journals using unmarried- or double- blind review during the review procedure. 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.

Larn about our Transparent Peer Review pilot in collaboration with Publons and ScholarOne (role of Clarivate, Spider web of Scientific discipline).

Collaborative review

This covers a broad diverseness of approaches in which a team of people work together to undertake the review. 1 format is to have 2 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 amend the newspaper, until it reaches a publishable standard.

Pros

• Information technology can experience more than 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 do good of having two, or more than, independent evaluations
• Collaboration between authors and reviewers also creates the adventure of blurring the distinction between authoring and appraisement

Post publication review

With this type of peer review, the option for appraisal and revision of a paper continues - or occurs - afterward publication. This may take the form of a comments folio or discussion forum aslope the published newspaper. Crucially, post publication peer review does non exclude other forms of peer review and is commonly in improver to, rather than instead of, pre-publication review.

Pros

• This approach reflects the evolving nature of knowledge
• It gives the opportunity for papers to exist 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 commendation of previous literature
• Shortcomings and errors within published material have traditionally been addressed through corrections and errata, and through published word (due east.g. letters to the editor)

Transferrable peer review

Some of Wiley's journals participate in a Manuscript Transfer Program. If an author'south initial submission is not accepted, they may choose to transfer their manuscript to a more suitable Wiley journal. If the manuscript was peer reviewed, the reviewer reports (including the reviewer'due south name, e-mail, and review) will transfer to the new journal along with the manuscript files, to be considered by the new periodical's editor.

aguiaraceis1947.blogspot.com

Source: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html

Share this post