see Peer-reviewed journal

In the peer review process, a manuscript or proposal is typically reviewed by two or more experts in the relevant field, who evaluate the work based on various criteria such as the quality of the research methods, the accuracy of the data, the relevance of the results, and the overall contribution to the field. Reviewers may provide feedback on ways to improve the work or address any issues, and they may ultimately recommend that the work be accepted for publication, revised and resubmitted, or rejected.

Both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity.

• Definition: Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know who reviewed their work.
• Used by: Most traditional journals (e.g., *Journal of Neurosurgery*, *Nature*).

✅ Advantages:

• Easier to find reviewers.
• Reviewers may feel more comfortable providing critical feedback.

⚠ Disadvantages:

• Reviewer bias possible (e.g., based on author’s institution, gender, nationality).
• Less accountability for reviewers.

• Definition: Neither reviewers nor authors know each other’s identity.
• Used by: Many humanities and social science journals; increasingly adopted in biomedical sciences.

✅ Advantages:

• Reduces bias and favoritism.
• Focuses attention on the quality of the manuscript.

⚠ Disadvantages:

• Difficult to fully anonymize (especially in niche fields).
• May discourage reviewers from making decisive critiques.

• Definition: Identities of both authors and reviewers are known, and sometimes the review reports are published alongside the article.
• Used by: *BMJ Open*, *F1000Research*, *eLife* (partial open review).

✅ Advantages:

• Transparency and accountability.
• Reviewers may provide more constructive, respectful feedback.

⚠ Disadvantages:

• Reviewers may be reluctant to be critical.
• Harder to recruit reviewers.

• Definition: The article is published online before peer review is complete; reviews and comments happen publicly afterward.
• Used by: *PubPeer*, *F1000Research*, *arXiv* (preprints).

✅ Advantages:

• Rapid dissemination of research.
• Continuous review and community engagement.

⚠ Disadvantages:

• Lack of formal gatekeeping.
• Risk of misinformation or unvetted claims.

• Definition: Authors and reviewers engage in real-time discussions during the review process.
• Used by: *eLife*, *Copernicus*, *PeerJ* (in various formats).

✅ Advantages:

• Improves clarity and mutual understanding.
• Speeds up revision process.

⚠ Disadvantages:

• Requires more time and engagement.
• Can blur roles between reviewer and co-author.

💡 Tip for Authors: Always check the journal's peer review policy before submission—transparency, review speed, and the potential for bias vary significantly across models.

Peer Review Process.

Double-blind peer review process

Peer review crisis.

see Peer review challenges.

see Peer review disadvantages.

Peer reviewer