Peer Review Either Open It Fully or Blind It Wholly
Exploring the Peer Review Process
The review process for manuscripts submitted to peer review journals is one of the most common bug I get questioned about when I come across authors. I am asked what type of review process my periodical uses and what the purpose and advantages and disadvantages of the various review processes are. I call back these questions arise from curiosity and poor experiences with submitted manuscripts. Likewise, some authors expect a caste of certainty in the process which, every bit editors, nosotros cannot provide. For case, I am often asked why i journal will decline a manuscript and another will accept it. My answer is that peer reviewing is not a scientific process; it is a process based on people and the judgements they make; people differ in their expertise, opinions, and experience. I also emphasize that reviewers for peer review journals exercise not make the decisions about which manuscripts to accept or reject; they provide a view on a manuscript which aids the editors in making a decision.
Types of peer review
There are, essentially, two types of peer review: closed and open. The former is more than mutual, but the latter is gaining in popularity. Authors and reviewers will encounter both.
Closed peer review is a organization where the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed in the periodical or to authors, and the identities of authors may not be disclosed, during the review process, to the reviewers. Of class, the reviewers can place the authors after publication. Closed review works in two ways: single-blind and double-bullheaded. Single bullheaded review works by revealing the names of authors to reviewers while withholding the names of reviewers from authors. In double-blind peer review—every bit described to a higher place—identities of authors and reviewers are mutually withheld.
Open peer review, in dissimilarity, operates a more than transparent approach to peer review. Identities of authors and reviewers are mutually disclosed and, furthermore, reviews are sometimes published aslope the published articles. This organization is becoming increasingly popular and is often applied by open up access journals.
Pros and cons
There is no consensus on which of these peer review systems is best and it is agreed that both closed and open peer review have good points and bad; likewise single- versus double-bullheaded peer review. The principle backside closed review is to minimize the bias of reviewers who may exist influenced by the identity of the authors and to protect the reviewers from authors who may accept exception to agin reviews and rejections. The principle of just protecting reviewers operates in unmarried-blind review. While information technology is ever possible to protect the identity of reviewers during and later the review procedure, it is oft possible for reviewers to identify authors by virtue of the piece of work that is being reviewed.
Moreover, even when the author cannot be identified, reviewers may have exception to a line of piece of work for reasons that are not concerned with the science or because the piece of work competes with or refutes some of their ain work. Therefore, the advantages of the system—minimizing bias and protecting identities—may be undermined by prejudice on behalf of reviewers.
As an 'antidote' to some of the issues raised by closed review, open review introduces transparency. By mutually revealing identities, the potential for bias by reviewers is attenuated by accountability to authors and readers. The advantages of this system may be outweighed by less-than-honest comments from reviewers who feel unable to exist frank near the piece of work.. On the other manus, the potential for unhelpful and inappropriate comments is reduced. Neither of the above systems of review-closed or open-is capable of completely obviating the bug they are designed to address.
Concluding words
Some modern variants have been proposed and 1 is post-publication review. To a large extent, post-publication review had always existed as it has e'er been possible, for example, to correspond with authors and journals well-nigh their publications and authors may cull to publish refutations and rejoinders. In recent years the rise of social media has facilitated and accelerated the exchange of views on scientific publications. Even so, mail service-publication review is too proposed as a more radical and dynamic process whereby articles are published without pre-publication review and are altered thereafter in response to mail-publication comments. This organisation has non yet 'defenseless on' simply has supporters including Richard Smith, the sometime editor of the BMJ.
Some other variation on the theme of closed review is triple blind review whereby, not just are authors and reviewers blind to each other'southward identities but where editors are also blind to the identity of both. This is aimed at minimizing bias amongst editors but does not eliminate the possibility of identifying authors by their work or of bias against competing piece of work. Again, at that place is fiddling prove that it is used commonly and it requires journals which can afford the administrative staff and processes.
The process of peer review, mainly in publishing just likewise in other aspects of academic life, came under the scrutiny of the British government and other bodies after some accusations about biased publishing in the field of climate science. The scrutiny was in-depth and prolonged. The decision was that the peer review arrangement in its various manifestations was far from perfect, but that it was the best available and should go on.
For more than on peer review processes, heed to my podcast on the subject field.
Epitome Credit:Bizroug/Shutterstock
Source: https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/being-a-peer-reviewer/exploring-the-peer-review-process