The three most common types of peer review are:
However, other models have evolved which include key variations from the standard approach. These include:
Let’s look at each type of peer review in more detail, together with its pros and cons.
In this type of peer review the author does not know who the reviewers are. This is the most common form of peer review among science journals.
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 amongst social science and humanities journals.
The identity of the author 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 articles, and so readers see both the identity of the reviewers and their comments. This is only the case, however, with accepted articles.
Wiley, Publons, and ScholarOne Manuscripts recently announced the launch of a new, integrated transparent peer review program. Wiley’s first journal in this pilot program is Clinical Genetics. The pilot program enables open publication of an article’s entire peer review process in an easily accessible, searchable, and citable format, in order to bring greater transparency to the research process and recognition to the work of peer reviewers. Authors will have the option to decline transparent peer review and reviewers can choose to remain anonymous.
To learn more about this latest initiative enabling transparent peer review for researchers at Wiley, read our blog post and press release, or check out this article from Clinical Genetics and its associated open review content.
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.
Wiley has a number of transferable peer review arrangements in place including a program cross 9 neuroscience journals - click here for details.
Some of Wiley’s open access journals participate in a Manuscript Transfer Program. Following review in a supporting journal, suitable rejected articles along with comments from referees may be transferred for publication in a Wiley Open Access journal. Authors are able to automatically transfer their manuscript to the open access journal and complete the submission process.
The Transplant Peer Review Network (Tx PRN) is a collaborative consortium formed to ease the burden on peer reviewers, improve the publication process for authors, and reduce the time and effort involved in the peer review of transplantation research by sharing peer review with other journals participating in the Network. More detailed information can be found at www.wileytxnetwork.com.
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.
With this type of peer 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.