Scholarly peer review is one of the most important stages of determining the quality of a scientific article. It is essentially what determines whether an author's work will be published in a journal. Also, this stage is one of the longest in the processing of the material. Some academics have criticised the peer review process, attributing a certain subjectivity to it, but today it is one of the most popular and valid methods of evaluating submissions. Here's a look at the most common types and stages of peer review in journals indexed in Scopus/Web of Science.
Single-blind review
This model implies that the author does not know who the reviewer is, but the reviewer knows whose work is being assessed. This virtually eliminates any possibility of pressure/influence on the part of the researcher. However, there are also some concerns in academic circles regarding conflicts of interest. A biased reviewer may deliberately delay processing, express prejudice of any kind towards the author or discredit them as a scholar. In fact, there have been cases where an author's article was viewed over a lengthy period and then passed off as their own.
On the other hand, if the reviewer and the author have collaborated previously or are closely acquainted, the peer review may be rather selective and unthorough. This can lead to low-quality material being accepted for publication.
Because it is considered to be a blatant violation of publication ethics, such cases never occurred in reputable and prestigious journals, as professional reviewers value their reputations. To eliminate all the disadvantages of one-sided blind peer review, double-blind peer review is used.
Double-blind review
In this type of review, both author and reviewer have no knowledge of each others' identities with full respect for the principle of anonymity. Scientific circles generally consider this to be the most transparent model.
It is also worth pointing out that if the author is engaged in a very narrow area of research, the reviewer may recognise the author from the researcher's past contributions.
Open review
This type of academic review is one of the most controversial. It requires the entire review history to be publicly available on the Internet. Review information is available to all concerned audiences.
On the one hand, this makes the process of evaluating manuscripts more transparent, but such publicity may contribute to authors being less critical of inferior material, by avoiding facing backlash from peers. Also, less experienced reviewers are often reluctant to criticise experienced researchers.
Transparent peer review
This type of expert evaluation implies that all necessary reports are available to anyone concerned after it has passed the peer review process. This allows for anyone to assess the nature of the comments, the scope of the work done and what the reviewers focused on. This type of insight is also useful for novice researchers who do not yet have a sufficient understanding of the specifics associated with scientific content, particularly when planning for publication in journals listed in the Scopus and/or Web of Science databases.
Collaborative review
With this type of peer review, two or more experts work together to compile a report of the review. There are many approaches to optimising performance available within this type. In some cases, the author might actually be able to cooperate with reviewers to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Post-publication peer review
This form of evaluation of scholarly material is often used in thematic forums and services in a discussion format. That is, evaluation takes place after the article has been published, so it is most often used as a complementary review method.
The main stages of academic review
Peer review is one of the most crucial stages of working with manuscripts, the positive result of which depends directly on the quality of the article. Scientific Publications provide support at all stages of the publication process, including article preparation, peer review and editorial review. Contact our experts using the form on the website and we will get back to you today!
Scientific Publications. Result, not process.
Read our recent material on «How to find the quartile of Scopus and Web of Science journals?»