Peer Review Across Disciplines: How It Differs in Science, Humanities, Medicine, and Beyond

Peer review is the backbone of scholarly communication, but its practices and norms vary widely by discipline. In sciences and engineering, peer review typically focuses on technical rigor, methodology, and reproducibility, often using shorter journal articles with strict methodological checks.

By contrast, humanities and social sciences (HSS) often produce longer, narrative works and books, with a review process that emphasizes conceptual originality and argument strength. These cultural differences shape how anonymity, review criteria, and publication formats are handled.

As one expert notes, many HSS fields are “book fields” where significant scholarship appears as monographs, and journals publish only a fraction of submissions. Journal articles in HSS also tend to be much longer than scientific articles, so reviewers invest substantial time on each manuscript.

In contrast, STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) fields usually publish shorter, focused articles with fixed structure and prioritize collaborative, data-driven research. Most STEM papers have multiple co-authors and move through the review process relatively quickly, whereas humanities work is often single-authored and can take over a year from submission to acceptance.

Peer Review Anonymity in Different Fields

Peer review anonymity often differs too. In many humanities and social science journals, double-blind review is standard: neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities, which helps mitigate bias.

By comparison, STEM journals are more likely to use single-blind review (reviewers know the authors) or even open review, depending on the field.

For example, an architecture journal explicitly “engages in a double-anonymous peer review process” to ensure rigor. Even within HSS, practices vary: while journal articles are usually double-blind, book manuscripts often undergo single-blind review (the author’s name is known to editors and reviewers).

The core evaluation questions – originality, argument quality, and contribution – remain similar across disciplines. However, HSS reviewers may focus on intellectual significance and writing style, whereas STEM reviewers emphasize experimental design, data integrity, and reproducibility.

Volume and Publication Type

The volume and type of publication also differs. STEM scholars often publish many short articles (and conference papers, especially in computer science or engineering) as part of ongoing projects, while HSS scholars may channel their findings into one comprehensive book.

Scientific journals typically have high throughput, whereas top humanities journals accept only a small percentage of submissions. In the humanities, “the publication process tends to last long, typically extending to over a year,” and journal impact factors may not even exist in many fields.

By contrast, “STEM research is typically collaborative… multi-authored,” with shorter manuscripts and faster turnaround, and formal metrics (like citation counts) play a big role in evaluating work.

These differences mean peer reviewers in each field bring different expectations: an engineering reviewer checks technical feasibility and calculation correctness, whereas a literature reviewer looks at the strength of a narrative or theoretical insight.

Special Practices in Medical and Clinical Research

Medical and clinical research have especially stringent peer review standards. Because published findings can directly affect patient care, reviewers meticulously check study design, statistical analysis, and ethical compliance.

Medical journals often require that clinical trials be preregistered (e.g. in ClinicalTrials.gov) and adhere to reporting guidelines (such as CONSORT for randomized trials) to ensure transparency. Reviewers and editors insist on disclosure of conflicts of interest so that evaluations remain objective.

Reviewers verify that appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics approvals are in place for studies involving human subjects. Peer review in medicine “provides a foundation for the credibility of scientific findings,” and since articles can “influence patient care and inform policy decisions,” the process must be especially rigorous.

Medical reviewers are typically domain experts and often include statisticians or methodologists. They validate data, check that conclusions follow logically, and ensure analyses are sound. Feedback is detailed and constructive, often leading to multiple rounds of revision.

The overall goal: enhance rigor, clarity, and reproducibility to protect the integrity of evidence-based medicine.

Peer Review in Engineering and Technology

In engineering and technology, peer review often coexists with a strong conference culture. Fields like computer science and electrical engineering value conference papers as key publication venues (IEEE, ACM, etc.).

Conference papers are shorter and reviewed on tight schedules, focusing on novelty and completeness. Reviews are fast and often lead directly to accept/reject decisions with little time for revision.

Journals, however, involve deeper scrutiny. Professional society journals (ASME, IEEE) typically require at least two to three external reviews for each manuscript. Reviewer anonymity is standard to protect impartiality.

Because engineering research involves prototypes, simulations, or new technologies, reviewers assess both theoretical soundness and practical feasibility. They may check experimental setups, software accuracy, or engineering assumptions.

Interdisciplinary fields like biomedical engineering often use panels of diverse reviewers. Timeliness matters: many engineering journals complete reviews within weeks, valuing rapid dissemination.

Despite faster cycles, the goal remains the same: ensure accuracy, reproducibility, and relevance before publication.

Peer Review in Research Funding and Grant Proposals

Peer review doesn’t end with publications—it’s also central to research funding decisions.

Funding agencies like NSF, NIH, and the European Research Council (ERC) use panels of experts to evaluate proposals. Reviewers focus on the project’s potential impact, feasibility, and innovation.

The NSF uses two main criteria: Intellectual Merit (quality of the science) and Broader Impacts (societal benefits). Proposals are read, scored, and discussed in panel meetings before final recommendations are made.

The NIH uses five scoring criteria: Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment. Each proposal receives an overall impact score. Conflicts of interest are carefully managed, and reviews are not anonymous.

Unlike journal reviews, grant reviews are forward-looking—they evaluate potential rather than completed work. The process is rigorous, structured, and designed to allocate limited resources to the most promising projects.

Peer Review in Education and Teaching Materials

In education, peer review extends beyond academic papers to teaching resources and textbooks.

Educational research journals review manuscripts like other disciplines, checking for sound methodology, clarity, and classroom relevance.

University presses and open education platforms (like OpenStax and the Open Textbook Library) subject textbooks to expert peer review. Reviewers assess accuracy, pedagogy, and accessibility, often suggesting ways to improve learning flow or align with standards.

This kind of review ensures that educational materials are credible, up-to-date, and effective for learners.

Even within classrooms, peer review can happen among teachers or students as part of assessment practices—an educational extension of scholarly peer evaluation.

Peer Review in Creative Disciplines (Arts, Architecture, Design)

Creative fields like art, architecture, and design follow distinctive peer review traditions.

While some journals (e.g. International Journal of Architectural Research) use double-blind peer review, much creative evaluation happens through curatorial panels, exhibitions, and juried competitions rather than traditional manuscripts.

University presses sometimes peer review creative works—like poetry collections or artist monographs—by sending them to subject experts for evaluation.

In these fields, the criteria differ: reviewers focus on originality, aesthetic coherence, conceptual innovation, and contribution to artistic discourse.

Formal peer review coexists with public critique and portfolio evaluation, reflecting the diversity of scholarly and creative outputs.

Despite the variety, one thing remains constant: the pursuit of quality and credibility. Whether through blind referees, expert panels, or curatorial boards, peer review in creative disciplines ensures that artistic and scholarly contributions meet high standards.

Conclusion

While the purpose of peer review—ensuring quality and credibility—remains universal, the way it’s practiced depends on each field’s culture and output.

From the data-driven rigor of STEM to the conceptual nuance of the humanities, and the creative evaluation of the arts, peer review adapts to serve the goals of each discipline.

Understanding these differences helps authors, reviewers, and readers appreciate the diversity of academic publishing and why peer review remains essential to scholarly progress.