What is peer review?

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

Reviewer journey picto

Groundwork

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 function of scientific communication since the outset scientific journals appeared more than 300 years ago. The Philosophical Transactions of the Purple Society is thought to be the kickoff journal 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 research community still believes peer review is the best form of scientific evaluation. This stance was endorsed by the outcome 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 Inquiry Consortium, saw 82 percent of researchers like-minded that "without peer review there is no control in scientific communication."

To learn more about peer review, visit Elsevier's free eastward-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 cheque which variant is employed by the journal on which you are working so you're aware of the respective rules. Each system has its ain advantages and disadvantages. Often one type of review will be preferred by a subject area community just there is an increasing phone call towards more transparency around the peer review process. In example of questions regarding the peer review model employed past the periodical for which you lot accept been invited to review, consult the periodical'southward homepage or contact the editorial role directly.

Single anonymized review

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

  • Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions – the reviewers should not be influenced past 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 existence unnecessarily disquisitional or harsh when commenting on the authors' piece of work.

Double anonymized review

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

  • Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example based on an author's gender, country of origin, bookish status or previous publication history.
  • Manufactures 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 in a higher place, reviewers can oftentimes place the writer through their writing style, subject matter or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee full author anonymity. More information for authors can be constitute 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. Manufactures are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a fashion to minimize any potential bias towards the author(due south). Withal, it should exist noted that:

  • the complexities involved with anonymizing articles/authors to this level are considerable
  • as with double anonymized review; there is nevertheless a possibility for the editor and/or reviewers to correctly divine the author's identity from their mode, subject affair, 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 after the peer review procedure. The most mutual definition of open review is when both the reviewer and author are known to each other during the peer review procedure. Other types of open peer review consist of:

  • publication of reviewers' names on the article page.
  • publication of peer review reports alongside the article, whether signed or bearding.
  • publication of peer review reports (signed or bearding) together with authors' and editors' responses alongside the article.
  • publication of the paper after a quick bank check and opening a discussion forum to the customs who can annotate (named or bearding).

Many believe this is the best manner to prevent malicious comments, cease plagiarism, forbid reviewers from following their ain agenda, and encourage open, honest reviewing. Others see open review equally a less honest process, in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism.

For three years, v Elsevier journals experimented with publication of peer review reports (signed or anonymous) as articles alongside the accepted paper on ScienceDirect (example).

Read more than about the experiment

More transparent peer review

In general, transparency is the cardinal to trust in peer review. Many Elsevier journals therefore publish the name of the article's handling editor on the published newspaper on ScienceDirect. Some journals as well provide details nearly the number of reviewers who reviewed the commodity before credence.

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 cascade

Elsevier authors tin can transfer their article submission from one journal to another for free if they are rejected, without the need to reformat, and ofttimes without needing further peer review.

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

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

Tools & resources picto

Tools and resources

Elsevier Researcher University modules