What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal office in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate bookish work, helps to amend the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within enquiry communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accustomed method for inquiry validation and has connected successfully with relatively small changes for some 350 years.

Reviewer journey picto

Background

Elsevier relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.

Peer review has been a formal role of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society is thought to exist the first periodical to formalize the peer review process under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms about the integrity of peer review, the majority of the inquiry customs nonetheless believes peer review is the all-time form of scientific evaluation. This stance was endorsed past the result of a survey Elsevier and Sense About Science conducted in 2009 and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly organization surveys. Furthermore, a 2015 survey by the Publishing Enquiry Consortium, saw 82 per centum of researchers agreeing that "without peer review there is no control in scientific advice."

To learn more most peer review, visit Elsevier's free e-learning platform Researcher Academy.

Peer review process picto

The peer review process

To view this embedded content, please enable Targeting cookies in your

Peer review types picto

Types of peer review

Peer review comes in different flavours: you must therefore bank check which variant is employed by the periodical on which you are working so you're aware of the corresponding rules. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject customs simply there is an increasing call towards more transparency around the peer review process. In instance of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal'south homepage or contact the editorial office direct.

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the writer. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymizedreview include:

  • Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should non exist influenced by the authors.
  • Authors may exist concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a take chances to publish first.
  • Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors' work.

Double anonymized review

Both the reviewer and the writer are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.

  • Writer anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, state of origin, academic status or previous publication history.
  • Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the ground of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.

Only bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing fashion, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly hard to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our double-anonymized peer review guidelines.

Triple anonymized review

With triple anonymized review, reviewers are anonymous and the writer's identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a fashion to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). However, it should be noted that:

  • the complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable
  • every bit with double anonymized review; there is still a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author'south identity from their style, field of study thing, citation patterns or a number of other methodologies

Open review

Open peer review is an umbrella term for many dissimilar models aiming at greater transparency during and later on the peer review process. The near common definition of open review is when both the reviewer and writer are known to each other during the peer review procedure. Other types of open up peer review consist of:

  • publication of reviewers' names on the article page.
  • publication of peer review reports aslope the article, whether signed or anonymous.
  • publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) together with authors' and editors' responses alongside the article.
  • publication of the newspaper afterwards a quick bank check and opening a give-and-take forum to the community who can comment (named or anonymous).

Many believe this is the best fashion to prevent malicious comments, finish plagiarism, prevent reviewers from post-obit their ain calendar, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review as a less honest process, in which politeness or fright of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism.

For three years, five Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) every bit articles aslope the accepted newspaper on ScienceDirect (example).

Read more most the experiment

More transparent peer review

In full general, transparency is the key to trust in peer review. Many Elsevier journals therefore publish the proper name of the article's handling editor on the published paper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details near the number of reviewers who reviewed the commodity before acceptance.

Furthermore, in order to provide updates and feedback to reviewers, most Elsevier journals inform reviewers near the editor's decision and their peers' recommendations.

ATS picto

Article transfer service: peer review cascade

Elsevier authors can transfer their article submission from i journal to some other for gratis if they are rejected, without the demand to reformat, and often without needing farther peer review.

We therefore ask referees during the review process for their consent to transfer their total review report (including all comments to the author and editor) along with the manuscript to the receiver journal. The benefits of full manuscript review cascades are twofold:

  • Reviewers are non asked to review the aforementioned manuscript several times for different journals.
  • Authors do non need to spend additional time reformatting their manuscript.

Tools & resources picto

Tools and resources

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules