Peer Review

In a previous article, we have discussed the main types of peer review methodologies available to academic researchers who look to get their work published.

The appropriateness of the methodology is often decided on behalf of authors and reviewers by the publishing journal.

In this short blog post, we will discuss the single-blind peer review process and touch on some of its advantages and disadvantages.

Definition of a Single-Blind Peer Review

A single-blind review is one of the most common forms of peer review.

In this case, it refers to the authors being ‘blind’ – the author(s) are not aware of the reviewers. That contrasts with the reviewer(s) who are fully aware of the author(s) at all times.

The Single-Blind Peer Review Process

In order to facilitate the process, communications will be managed by the third party. The more established journals usually automate this process, allowing an online management system to facilitate uploading of papers and feedback of reviewers.

Advantages of Single-Blind Review

On the face of it, you may think that the single-blind peer review system simply favours the reviewer.

This method ensures that the author(s) cannot exert any influence on the reviewer(s), whether that be indirectly through what is written in a paper, or through direct communication between the two parties.

Compared to the double-blind peer review method, it also means that reviewers can filter out authors with a ‘bad reputation’ to speed up and streamline the peer review process – albeit at the detriment of the author.

The reviewer(s) are also empowered to critique and give completely honest feedback on any work without the fear of repercussions.

Disadvantages of Single-Blind Review

Some academics see both of the advantages we just mentioned as disadvantages, which has helped to introduce other types of peer review, such as the double-blind or open peer review.

Allowing reviewers to be anonymous gives them a platform to be critical, typically more so than if their identities were revealed.

And this is made worse when authors cannot seek any sort of clarification or engage in a discussion once feedback has been delivered.

What Peer Review Methodology is Best?

This depends on the needs of each journal or field. There is no one ‘best’ solution.

In a very specialised or uncontroversial field, it may suffice to use single-blind peer review, as reviewers are likely to be fair. In other fields, more openness is definitely needed, as reviewers and editors are likely to be biased. 

Alethes.net deals with some of the most controversial themes, such as ideology and human reproduction, so we are implementing our own system.

You can also check out our other articles to learn more about different types of peer review methods such as double-blind, open-peer and non-peer review methodologies.

In a previous article, we have already introduced and discussed the concept of the single-blind peer review. In this article, we are going to look at a variation of this – the double- blind peer review – and discuss the pros and cons of this methodology.

We will also directly compare the single-blind to double-blind method at the end of this article.

What is a double-blind peer review?

The double blind peer review is a process where both the author(s) and reviewer(s) are ‘blind’. In the context of peer-reviewing, this means that both parties remain anonymous to each other during and after the peer review.

What is the process for a double-blind review?

Much like the single blind review process, the blind review peer process is managed by an intermediary – usually the journal or publication in which the paper may be published.

Communication is passed between the two anonymously, where the paper is initially shared and feedback given. It is not an open discussion to discuss work back and forth.

The advantages and disadvantages

With all peer review methodologies, there are pros and cons for each.

Advantages

The double blind process facilitates anonymity between both parties, which eliminates the influence of personal bias.

In the case of the author, they cannot edit their work so that it shows bias favourably towards the reviewer, and similarly, the reviewer is not biased by based on their perception of the author.

Disadvantages

There are also disadvantages to the double-blind peer review process.

Feedback that is given to the author from the reviewer is often just that. It is feedback without any form of furthering discussion or improving upon the work presented.

Again, similarly to the single blind peer review, the anonymity and controlled communication makes it hard for both parties to discuss or communicate results, analysis of conclusions.

This also gives the reviewer the platform to be overly critical, and sometimes unfair, without the form of repercussions. As far as a reviewer is concerned, once their feedback is given, their job is done.

Conclusion

The double-blind and single-blind peer review methodology are both examples of the closed peer review system.

In both of these systems, the authors remain at the peril of the reviewer. Authors rely solely on the reviewers opinion and there is no option to discuss or critique work together for the sake of educational progress.

There are of course advantages and disadvantages to all methodologies, but there are other alternatives to consider such as open peer review methods.

There are many types of peer review methodologies, including open peer reviews and closed peer reviews. 

In this article, we are going to discuss what a non-peer review is, and how it differs from some of the more commonly used peer review methods.

What is a non-peer review?

A non-peer review is exactly what you imagine – it is an article, paper or any other piece of work that requires no external review before it is published.

When publishing a non-peer review, it is possible for an author to write, proofread and publish an article all by themselves. Even if they do not proof or publish the content themselves, it will still be deemed as a non-peer reviewed publication as there is no external reviewer feedback before being published.

Who uses non-peer reviews?

Non-peer reviewed articles are published more often than you think; such as when somebody is publishing their own content for their blog, guest posting on a website, or even publishing a news story.

Why the difference between peer review and non-peer review?

There are different examples of non-peer reviewed publications. These include examples such as blogs, news stories and opinion pieces:

If you are a researcher that is publishing your own content – on a personal blog for example – it is possible that the content you are writing about has been covered many times previously. 

If you are a reporter, you may be writing to strict deadlines to ensure timely publication of time-sensitive material.

Or if you are writing content that is an op-ed piece that doesn’t hypothesise or conclude an outcome, it is unlikely to require reviewing by peers.

Advantages and Disadvantages of non-peer reviews

When it comes to academic writing, we often associate it with peer-review. However, there is a time and place for when an author does and doesn’t require peer review.

Advantages

One of the most obvious benefits of non-peer reviews is that it makes it possible for anybody to publish articles at their own leisure, which may improve communication by removing external pressures.

It also means that anybody can publish whatever content they wish and leave it up to others to be reviewed, or decide later if they want to have it reviewed.

Disadvantages

Non-peer reviewed articles make it incredibly accessible for writers of all levels to publish their own work. However, this also brings about its own issues.

With no formal review process, it means that authors can publish misleading or bad-quality research.

This is an issue you might have previously come across in news reporting, when general news reporters publish articles about complex subject matters that they don’t understand or mis-interpret.

Should you use non-peer reviewed articles?

There is definitely a use-case for non-peer reviewed articles, especially when considering that anyone is free to point out any errors in what has been published.

When it comes to academic papers, it is best to ensure that any work you publish or reference as an author is peer-reviewed to ensure validity of your work. However, articles can be peer reviewed and still be erroneous and misleading. 

It might seem that Alethes.net publishes non-peer review articles by Jose Maanmieli, but we constantly send them out for review, and seek more validation from academics than is often the case with traditional journals.   

When we consider traditional peer review methodologies such as a single-blind or double-blind peer review, we are discussing types of closed peer reviews.

As described in the articles linked to above, either the author – or both author and reviewer – are ‘closed off’ from each other, meaning they have no way of identifying each other.

The open peer review method turns that on its head; instead the author, reviewer and wider population are visible to each other and all parties are involved.

In this article, we are going to discuss the open-peer review process in more detail.

What is an open peer review?

An open peer review is a method of peer review where the identities of both author(s) and reviewer(s) are made available to each other. In some additional cases, a select wider community can view communications and even get involved themselves.

The three modifications of the open peer review are:

1. Open Identities – Author(s) and reviewer(s) are aware of each other’s identities
2. Open Reports – Reports and the history of communications are made publicly available alongside the published paper.
3. Open Participation – As well as the reviewer(s), the wider community are invited to participate in the peer review process.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Open Peer Review

There are both pros and cons to open peer reviews; let’s have a look at them:

Advantages

One of the main advantages of open peer review is to encourage open and constructive feedback and criticism of a paper. Compare this with a closed peer review, where feedback is anonymous which can encourage harsh or overly-critical feedback.

When feedback is made public in the form of published reviewer comments, or open participation peer reviewing, it can help promote constructive criticism for the advancement of education.

Disadvantages

Where open reviews allows the wider community to participate, it can also be deemed as a popularity contest. 

Authors that have a wider network and more influence, are likely to see more participation in their work being reviewed compared to their peers.

Open-Peer versus Closed-Peer Reviews?

It’s hard to see disadvantages in open peer review. If somebody has a wide network, it is either related to its real value, or it has been inflated through some kind of closed system (see the example of money).

Either way, openness should bring a balance to the discussion of ideas that concern us all.

This is what we are implementing at Alethes.net.

In this article we will discuss some different types of peer reviews and how they are used in academic settings today.

What is a Peer Review?

Peer review is a method of evaluating the work of one’s peers. This may be done informally by colleagues in academia, or more formally as part of an examination process.

The term “peer review” can also refer to the evaluation that professionals in various fields have conducted on themselves for quality assurance purposes, such as journal editors who publish material written by other academics. 

The Purpose of the Peer Review Process

During a peer review, the authors of an article submit their work for commentary by peers. This commentary, may include constructive criticism, suggestions regarding errors or omissions that should be addressed before publication can occur, or downright rejection.

The first goal of peer review is to ensure that articles are not plagiarised and that they contain novel or important work.

The process must ensure a high quality publication in journals, with ethical standards for reporting research findings which will be free from as many errors as possible. It may also include advice about how these problems could have been avoided at some stage during the research process.

The purpose of peer review may also be seen in the context of validating an author’s work. Peer Reviewers are often required to supply criticism about a manuscript’s validity. This does not necessarily correlate with knowledge of the subject or scientific accuracy. There exist many pseudo-scientific publications that use peer review.

Types of Peer Review

There are many different types of peer review, each with their own pros and cons.

In this next section, we will give you a brief overview of the different types of peer review. At the end of each section, you can click through to a dedicated article about each review type for even more information.

Open Peer Review

Open peer review is a methodology where both reviewers and authors are mutually aware of each other during the review process.

Closed Peer Review

Closed Peer review is a methodology where the reviewers identities are not disclosed, either to the authors or to the journal that they are published in. Closed Peer Reviews can consist of either the single blind or double blind review method.

Single Blind Review

A single blind peer review, the author does not know who the reviewers are, however, the reviewers know who the author is.

Double Blind Review

A double blind peer review is similar to the single blind review method. Not only does the author not know who the reviewers are, but the reviewers also don’t know who the author is.

Collaborative Peer Review

In a collaborative peer review, both parties – the author(s) and reviewer(s) can interact with each other. Typically, the journal platforms will offer a platform for the collaboration to facilitate publication of the review.

Transparent Peer Review

A transparent peer review is similar to the open peer review, but takes it one step further. From the initial review, up until it is published, readers can see the full peer review history including author and reviewer correspondence up until publication.

Post Publication Peer Review

The peer reviews that have been discussed already all use a process where publications are peer reviewed before publication. From the name, it is hardly surprising to learn that post publication peer review happens after publication.

Non-Peer Review

Any of the Peer review methods mentioned above all rely on one thing – they are reviewed by somebody else. A non-peer review is exactly as it sounds; it is an article/journal that hasn’t been reviewed at all.

Which Peer Review Method is Best?

There is no ‘right’ answer to this question and in fact, the best peer review method is the one that makes sense for a given situation.

All the methods discussed here have their pros and cons, and there are reasons why different publications choose a different type of peer review. At Alethes.net, we publish fundamental ideas on human behaviour, so we have chosen a type of transparent, post-publication peer review. Click here to find out more. 

To learn more about the different types and pros of cons associated with each Peer review, be sure to check out each of our dedicated articles!

How long does the Peer Review process take?

There is no typical answer to this question, as it very much depends on the circumstances. However, the process of peer review can be lengthy, as it depends on the subject matter and the number of reviewers required, so is likely to take weeks or even a few months.

How can the peer review process be more effective?

The types of peer reviews discussed in this article all have their pros and cons, and each type should be considered for specific scenarios. However, if by ‘effectiveness’ we mean the ability to advance science, then peer review can be improved by using the internet. Peer review does not need to be limited to a small, local group of peers who could be defending their own biases and interests.

Peer review can also be manipulated, especially when it is a closed system and it is difficult to verify the accuracy of information. There can be fake peer reviews, citation manipulation and collusion among all sorts of experts who may have the best intentions.