What is peer review?

Reviewers play a pivotal function in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to meliorate the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities inside research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is nevertheless the only widely accustomed method for research validation and has continued successfully with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

Reviewer journey picto

Background

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

Peer review has been a formal function of scientific advice since the first scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Regal Society is idea to be the start periodical to formalize the peer review procedure under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg (1618- 1677).

Despite many criticisms almost the integrity of peer review, the majority of the research customs nevertheless believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This opinion was endorsed by the outcome of a survey Elsevier and Sense Almost Science conducted in 2009 and has since been further confirmed by other publisher and scholarly arrangement surveys. Furthermore, a 2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortium, saw 82 percent of researchers like-minded that "without peer review in that location is no control in scientific communication."

To larn more about peer review, visit Elsevier's costless e-learning platform Researcher Academy.

Peer review process picto

The peer review process

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

Peer review types picto

Types of peer review

Peer review comes in different flavours: you must therefore check which variant is employed by the journal on which you are working so you're aware of the respective rules. Each organization has its ain advantages and disadvantages. Ofttimes i type of review will be preferred by a subject community but 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 periodical for which you have been invited to review, consult the journal'due south homepage or contact the editorial part directly.

Single anonymized review

In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the near mutual type past far. Points to consider regarding unmarried anonymizedreview include:

  • Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors.
  • Authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first.
  • Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors' piece of work.

Double anonymized review

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

  • Writer anonymity limits reviewer bias, for case based on an author'due south 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.

But bear in mind that despite the higher up, reviewers tin oft place the author through their writing style, discipline matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly hard to guarantee total author anonymity. More than data 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'south identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize whatever potential bias towards the author(s). Nevertheless, it should exist noted that:

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

Open review

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

  • publication of reviewers' names on the article folio.
  • 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 paper after a quick cheque and opening a word forum to the customs who can annotate (named or anonymous).

Many believe this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, end plagiarism, prevent reviewers from following their own agenda, 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 iii years, v Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or bearding) every bit articles aslope the accepted newspaper on ScienceDirect (example).

Read more about the experiment

More transparent peer review

In general, transparency is the key to trust in peer review. Many Elsevier journals therefore publish the proper noun of the article'south handling editor on the published newspaper on ScienceDirect. Some journals also provide details well-nigh the number of reviewers who reviewed the article earlier acceptance.

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

ATS picto

Article transfer service: peer review pour

Elsevier authors can transfer their commodity submission from i journal to some other for costless if they are rejected, without the need to reformat, and often without needing further peer review.

We therefore ask referees during the review procedure for their consent to transfer their total review study (including all comments to the writer and editor) forth with the manuscript to the receiver journal. The benefits of total manuscript review cascades are twofold:

  • Reviewers are not asked to review the same manuscript several times for different journals.
  • Authors do not need to spend additional fourth dimension reformatting their manuscript.

Tools & resources picto

Tools and resource

Elsevier Researcher Academy modules