Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies

Abstract

The traditional peer review model is blinded: either single-blinded or double-blinded.The single-blinded review model has two further subtypes.In the first subtype, the authors know the names of the reviewers but the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.This subtype is not common and can appear in the form of an 'author-guided review', in which the journal allows author selection of reviewers.As this system is meant to protect against potential reviewers who are biased (e.g.professional rivalry), authors can provide the names of certain reviewers for exclusion.Other advantages are that authors can choose the most appropriate reviewers for their topic, it is easier for editors to find relevant expertise for very specialised fields, and the time taken to review can be reduced.A counterargument is that this sort of peer review distorts the scientific process.There is also potential for reviewer fraud (discussed later).In the second subtype of the single-blinded review model, the reviewers know the names of the authors, who are blinded to the reviewer's identity.This subtype is the more common of the Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.