Skip to main content

Table 1 Models of peer review

From: Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

Peer review model   Examples Available information on peer review selection criteria
Single blind Reviewers know who the authors are, but authors do not know who the reviewers are. The majority of biomedical journals Varies from journal to journal. The journal editors select peer reviewers according to their own criteria.
Double blind Both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous   As above
Open peer review Both reviewers and authors are known to each other First introduced by the BMJ [[14]] As above
BMC series medical journals [[16]]
Re-review opt out Authors are able to ‘opt-out’ of re-review after revisions if reviewers deem the research to be sound. BMC Biology: [[20]] As above, but one referee will usually be selected from those nominated by the author.
Collaborative peer review Peer review includes a stage where the peer reviewers with or without the editor or authors take part in real time interactive discussion about the manuscript and agree a single set of revisions. Elife [[26]] A member of a ‘Board of Reviewing Editors’ oversees peer review and usually peer reviews themselves.
Frontiers [[27]] Members of the Editorial Board peer review and use a formal evaluation system
Portable peer review Manuscripts which are peer reviewed by one journal, but rejected on grounds of threshold or interest are transferred together with their peer review reports to other journals which have the scope and threshold to match the manuscript. This can occur within a publisher or between a consortium of publishers. BioMed Central [[25]] Criteria for selecting peer reviewers will be that of the original journal
Decoupled peer review Manuscripts are submitted to a peer reviewing service which organizes peer review and provides advice on appropriate journals based on the peer review reports. Axios Review [[23]] Criteria can vary. For example,
Rubriq [[24]] Rubriq: Peer reviewers must have a terminal degree in the area of interest, be employed full time in an accredited research university at the level of professor, instructor, post doc fellow or faculty research associate, must be a published first author or corresponding author in a peer reviewed academic journal within the last four years, and have prior experience as a journal peer reviewer. There is a standardized scorecard.
Peerage of science [[22]]
Journals can also select manuscripts based on the peer review reports.
Peerage of science: Peer reviewers select the manuscripts they wish to review. Peer reviewers need to be scientists to qualify to peer review. Peer review reports are reviewed by fellow reviewers. Only scientists who have published a peer reviewed scientific article in an established international journal as first or corresponding author will be validated as Peers.
Post publication peer review Manuscripts undergo initial checks and are published. Peer reviewers are then invited. Authors can revise their manuscripts. Revisions are published. If the manuscript ‘passes’ peer review, the article is indexed in databases such as Pub Med, Scopus etc F1000Research [[21]] F1000Research: Authors are asked to identify five potential referees who might be from the peer review panel. Author suggested referees should not have collaborated with the authors in the past five years, be from their own institution, or be too senior to be likely to undertake such refereeing (they should ideally have authored at least one article in the field as the lead author).