Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities.
Peer review models
Single-blind peer review
The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. However, the name of the author is shared with the reviewers.
The fact that reviewers remain anonymous means they can speak honestly and impartially. Meanwhile, knowledge of an author’s identity can help reviewers place an article in the context of the author’s earlier work.
Double-blind peer review
The reviewers aren’t told the name of the author, and the author never learns the names of the reviewers.
Outside of the triple-blind model (see below), this is the surest way to ensure that the process is completely objective.
The focus remains on the content of the article, and the possibility of reviewer bias is eliminated. Reviewer bias may be favourable or unfavourable, conscious or unconscious.
Triple-blind peer review
The identities of the author, reviewers and editors remain hidden from each other. The author is usually identified only by a number and communication takes place through a website or submission system. This eliminates any potential bias.
Open peer review
This can vary in form. It may be as simple as making the author and reviewers known to one another, or the reviews – and the reviewers’ names – may be published alongside the article. The review process may take place pre- or post-publication, and reports may receive their own DOIs, making them discoverable and citable.
This offers complete transparency. Some believe that the knowledge that reports are going to be published, encourages reviewers to produce higher-quality reports overall. The post-publication format publicly recognises the important work of the reviewers.
Our approach to article peer review
The majority of our journals have adopted a double-blind peer review model, with reviewers invited by the journal editor.
An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. It will be evaluated in the office, whether it is suitable for journal aims and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using iThenticate.
The manuscript will be sent to at least three anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Peer Review). Reviewers’ comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.
The suggested decision will be evaluated by the editor. Afterwards, the editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.
