Table II.

Advantages and disadvantages of common manuscript evaluation models

Models	Advantages	Disadvantages
In-house (internal) editorial review	Allows detection of major flaws and errors that justify outright rejections; rarely, outstanding manuscripts are accepted without delays	Journal staff evaluations may be biased; manuscript acceptance without external review may raise concerns of soft quality checks
Single-blind peer review	Masking reviewer identity prevents personal conflicts in small (closed) professional communities	Reviewer access to author profiles may result in biased and subjective evaluations
Double-blind peer review	Concealing author and reviewer identities prevents biased evaluations, particularly in small communities	Masking all identifying information is technically burdensome and not always possible
Open (public) peer review	May increase quality, objectivity, and accountability of reviewer evaluations; it is now part of open science culture	Peers who do not wish to disclose their identity may decline reviewer invitations
Post-publication open peer review	May accelerate dissemination of influential reports in line with the concept “publish first, judge later”; this concept is practised by some open-access journals (e.g., F1000 Research)	Not all manuscripts benefit from open dissemination without peers’ input; post-publication review may delay detection of minor or major mistakes
Post-publication social media commenting	May reveal some mistakes and misconduct and improve public perception of article implications	Not all communities use social media for commenting and other academic purposes