A variety of models exist for the scholarly peer review process, some more traditional and others more emerging. Let’s take a brief look at the most common models:
Single-anonymized peer review
In this model, the reviewer’s identity is masked from the author, but the author’s identity is left visible to the reviewer. While this model may protect the reviewer from retaliation, it does not offer an author any protection from personal bias, and, in fact, it may allow a reviewer to hide behind their anonymity while making inappropriate or hurtful review comments.
Double-anonymized peer review
Neither the author nor the reviewer is aware of the other’s identity in this model. Information which could personally identify the author(s) is redacted from the manuscript before it is submitted to a journal, and the reviewer is not identified in their comments. Traditionally, this has been considered “the gold standard” for scientific peer review. The author’s anonymity is intended to protect against a reviewer’s conscious and unconscious biases, whether positive or negative. At the same time, the reviewer’s anonymity is intended to protect them from retaliation for a negative review. In reality, this model cannot eliminate all bias; reviewers may still exhibit unconscious bias against non-native uses of language, as well as novel approaches and opinions that push boundaries the reviewer sees as expected.
Triple-anonymized peer review
In this model, the author and reviewer identities are also withheld from the decision-making editor and known only to an Editor-in-Chief, editorial office, or professional in a similar position.
Open (or non-anonymized) peer review
Although precise definitions vary widely, this review model generally reveals the identities on both sides; the author and reviewer are known to each other, either before and/or after the review process. Critics often have “equated open peer review with bias and a lack of rigor” (Hare 2018). For example, critics may be concerned a reviewer won’t be honest about a paper’s weaknesses in open comments if they are concerned about maintaining a professional networking relationship with the author. On the other hand, supporters argue that open peer review “flattens hierarchies, increases access, and builds authorial voice and confidence” (Hare 2018). Holding reviewers personally accountable for their comments may result in less negative or abusive responses. In ideal circumstances, open peer review can be more developmental because it enables a dialogue between author and reviewer. Authors may request additional clarification about reviewer feedback and ultimately make more progress toward revisions that strengthen their paper.
Transparent peer review (or “open reports”)
Any of the above models may be followed regarding anonymity, but after acceptance, the reviews themselves are published with the article. These are sometimes signed and sometimes anonymous.
Post-publication peer review (PPPR)
This model prioritizes the speedy publication of research before a lengthy review process. Other experts in the field read and review the paper after it is published; their comments are visible and encourage a disciplinary conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of a study. Supporters see this model as more egalitarian, giving the power back to the scholars in a discipline and eliminating some of the racist, classist trappings of traditional scholarly publishing systems. A 2020 study also indicates that PPPR may be a more effective mechanism for correcting science than negative citations (Bordignon). Critics worry that poor-quality research with unreliable resultsResultsThe section of a research article where researchers share the results from the research. This section takes the results and directly connects them to the research questions or hypotheses posed at the start of the article. Also can be called “Findings.” may cause harm before the post-peer review conversation can catch up and flag false or questionable content.
Table 1, created by Erin Owens for LibParlor Online Learning, 2023.
You should be aware that the older terms “double-blind” and “single-blind” are still often seen in discussions of peer review. However, those terms are often considered ableist, so we have opted to avoid them in this lesson.
Other forms of review may occur in some contexts. For example, while a book proposal may undergo peer review, the complete book manuscript itself usually goes through editorial review, in which the main editor handling the work provides constructive feedback, obviously with their identity known to the author.
In addition to these formal models of peer review, researchers may engage in informal review processes with colleagues. This extra perspective prior to journal submission can help correct errors and improve clarity, increasing the likelihood that the journal will consider the submission more seriously. If you choose this approach, your colleague does not have to match or exceed your expertise in the topic; they can stand in for a less experienced reader who needs to find your work clear and accessible in order to learn from it.
However, be considerate of your colleagues’ time with such a request — ask whether they are willing to read it before sending the paper itself; let them know upfront when you would like to receive their feedback; and try to provide a sufficient lead time for them to fit the request into their existing commitments. You may also consider what you could offer in exchange; for example, you could cover some of their hours at a research desk, take over part of their tasks in a group project, or offer a similar favor. Even if an equal exchange of work is not possible, consider a gesture to show that you value their time and uncompensated labor; you might buy them a cup of coffee or their favorite chocolate bar, for example. If they are also interested in the benefits of informal review, maybe you can reciprocate by reviewing a draft of their research.
Read the Librarian Parlor article below to learn more about the benefits of finding a partner (or several) with whom you can share and strengthen your “rough work”:
Complete the following exercise in your LPOL Workbook. This exercise will help you check for learning, engage with the material, and work through new ideas.
How do you feel about the idea of sharing your imperfect work-in-progress? Think about your existing mentors or other librarians at your institution, in your professional association, or elsewhere in your network. Who might have expertise related to your research question, greater experience with publishing scholarly research articles, or simply a shared enthusiasm to publish? Who would you feel comfortable asking for constructive feedback? How might you respectfully approach them to ask for help, and are you prepared to return the favor if asked?
You can begin brainstorming a plan for informal review using the 5.1.3:Colleague Reviewers worksheet in your LPOL Workbook.
Bordignon, Frederique. “Self-Correction of Science: A Comparative Study of Negative Citations and Post-Publication Peer Review.” Scientometrics 124 (2020): 1225-1239. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z
Hare, Sarah. “Advocating for Open Peer Review in LISLibrary and Information ScienceAn interdisciplinary field that examines how physical and digital information is organized, accessed, collected, managed, disseminated and used, particularly in library settings..” The Librarian Parlor. March 21, 2018. https://libparlor.com/2018/03/21/advocating-for-open-peer-review-in-lis/.
O’Sullivan, Lydia, Ma, Lai, and Peter Doran. “An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review.” Scholarly Assessment Reports 3, no. 1 (2021): 6. doi.org/10.29024/sar.26.
Peh, Wilfred C. G. “Peer Review: Concepts, Variants and Controversies.” Singapore Medical Journal 63, no. 2 (2022): 55-60. doi.org/10.11622%2Fsmedj.2021139
Models of Scholarly Peer Review
A variety of models exist for the scholarly peer review process, some more traditional and others more emerging. Let’s take a brief look at the most common models:
You should be aware that the older terms “double-blind” and “single-blind” are still often seen in discussions of peer review. However, those terms are often considered ableist, so we have opted to avoid them in this lesson.
Other forms of review may occur in some contexts. For example, while a book proposal may undergo peer review, the complete book manuscript itself usually goes through editorial review, in which the main editor handling the work provides constructive feedback, obviously with their identity known to the author.
In addition to these formal models of peer review, researchers may engage in informal review processes with colleagues. This extra perspective prior to journal submission can help correct errors and improve clarity, increasing the likelihood that the journal will consider the submission more seriously. If you choose this approach, your colleague does not have to match or exceed your expertise in the topic; they can stand in for a less experienced reader who needs to find your work clear and accessible in order to learn from it.
However, be considerate of your colleagues’ time with such a request — ask whether they are willing to read it before sending the paper itself; let them know upfront when you would like to receive their feedback; and try to provide a sufficient lead time for them to fit the request into their existing commitments. You may also consider what you could offer in exchange; for example, you could cover some of their hours at a research desk, take over part of their tasks in a group project, or offer a similar favor. Even if an equal exchange of work is not possible, consider a gesture to show that you value their time and uncompensated labor; you might buy them a cup of coffee or their favorite chocolate bar, for example. If they are also interested in the benefits of informal review, maybe you can reciprocate by reviewing a draft of their research.
Read the Librarian Parlor article below to learn more about the benefits of finding a partner (or several) with whom you can share and strengthen your “rough work”:
“Embracing the Value of Sharing ‘Rough Work’”
Exercise
Complete the following exercise in your LPOL Workbook. This exercise will help you check for learning, engage with the material, and work through new ideas.
How do you feel about the idea of sharing your imperfect work-in-progress? Think about your existing mentors or other librarians at your institution, in your professional association, or elsewhere in your network. Who might have expertise related to your research question, greater experience with publishing scholarly research articles, or simply a shared enthusiasm to publish? Who would you feel comfortable asking for constructive feedback? How might you respectfully approach them to ask for help, and are you prepared to return the favor if asked?
You can begin brainstorming a plan for informal review using the 5.1.3: Colleague Reviewers worksheet in your LPOL Workbook.
Topic 3 References
Ades, Rachel. “An End to ‘Blind Review’.” Blog of the APA. February 20, 2020. https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/02/20/an-end-to-blind-review/.
Bordignon, Frederique. “Self-Correction of Science: A Comparative Study of Negative Citations and Post-Publication Peer Review.” Scientometrics 124 (2020): 1225-1239. doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z
Fully OA Group. “The Many Flavors of ‘Open’ Peer Review.” Fully OA. June 8, 2023. https://fullyoapublishers.org/2023/06/08/the-many-flavors-of-open-peer-review/.
Hames, Irene. “The Changing Face of Peer Review.” Science Editing 1, no. 1 (2014): 9-12. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.9.
Hare, Sarah. “Advocating for Open Peer Review in LISLibrary and Information Science An interdisciplinary field that examines how physical and digital information is organized, accessed, collected, managed, disseminated and used, particularly in library settings..” The Librarian Parlor. March 21, 2018. https://libparlor.com/2018/03/21/advocating-for-open-peer-review-in-lis/.
Hare, Sarah and Cara Evanston. “Considering Developmental Peer Review.” College & Research Libraries 79, no. 6 (2018). https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/17262/18992
O’Sullivan, Lydia, Ma, Lai, and Peter Doran. “An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review.” Scholarly Assessment Reports 3, no. 1 (2021): 6. doi.org/10.29024/sar.26.
Peh, Wilfred C. G. “Peer Review: Concepts, Variants and Controversies.” Singapore Medical Journal 63, no. 2 (2022): 55-60. doi.org/10.11622%2Fsmedj.2021139