| 1) Traditional peer review |
- Review confidential |
- Single-, double- or triple-blind review |
- Author-reviewer interaction hidden |
- Editorial decision not public |
- Reviewing time varies |
- Reviewers' names listed in dedicated acknowledgement page of journal |
|
• Assessment by editors |
- Reviewers/reports not published |
- Strong criticisms may be given |
- Review quality may be low |
- Publication speed based on reviewing time |
|
• Evaluation by reviewers |
|
- Less accountability (nonconstructive criticisms) |
- Reviews may be redundant |
- New review in new journal |
|
• Final decision by chief editor |
|
|
|
|
| 2) Open peer review |
- Review made public |
- Editors and reviewers disclosed to authors |
- Author-reviewer interaction transparent |
- Editorial decisions made public |
- Speeds up publication |
- Reviewers' names and their reports published alongside the article |
|
• Similar to traditional review |
- Reviewers and authors known |
- Strong criticisms tempered |
- Review quality enhanced |
- Shortens reviewing time |
|
• Articles published online |
|
- Constructive criticisms encouraged |
- Redundant reviews avoided |
- Avoids delays and new reviews |
|
• Several open peer reviews as managed by editor |
|
|
|
|
