Types of Peer Review Explained: Models, Pros, Cons, and Best Practices

Peer review is the process by which experts evaluate manuscripts before (or after) publication to ensure quality, validity, and fairness in scholarly research. There are several models of peer review, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. We discuss the main types below.

Single-Blind Peer Review

In single-blind review, the reviewers’ identities are hidden from the authors, but reviewers know who the authors are. This is the most common model in many science journals. The anonymity encourages reviewers to be candid: they can critique the work without fear of author backlash. Knowing the author’s identity can also help reviewers place the work in context and draw on the authors’ prior research.

Advantages: Reviewers can give frank feedback without author pressure. They often use knowledge of the author’s reputation and past work to inform the review, potentially raising the review’s relevance and depth.

Disadvantages: The opposite side of this is bias: reviewers may favor famous or prestigious authors and be unduly harsh on lesser-known authors. Single-blind review can also enable gender, institutional or national bias, since the reviewer knows the author’s identity.

Single-blind review is common where reviewer honesty is valued and the community of scholars is relatively tight-knit. However, its susceptibility to bias means it may be less fair in fields with prominent researchers or systemic inequalities.

Double-Blind Peer Review

In double-blind review, both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. Authors often submit manuscripts with identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgements) in a separate cover letter, so reviewers see only the content. The aim is to reduce bias based on author identity or status. By masking identities, double-blind review attempts to “keep bias out of the equation,” leading to fairer judgments of the research itself.

Advantages: Double-blind review tends to produce more objective evaluations. Reviewers can’t favor work by prestigious authors, and authors don’t know the reviewers, which can lower fear of retribution. Many journals (especially in social sciences and humanities) use this to promote fairness.

Disadvantages: True anonymity can be hard to achieve. Readers often guess authors from writing style or self-citations, so bias may still creep in. Also, without knowing the author’s background, a reviewer may miss relevant context or be unable to appreciate the author’s unique perspective. Reviewers might even become more critical of less-funded or non-native-English authors when they can’t see any identity.

Overall, double-blind review is best used when reducing author-related bias is a priority (for example, to help underrepresented authors). However, its logistical complexity and imperfect anonymity are limitations.

Open Peer Review

Open peer review refers to models where the authors and reviewers know each other’s identities, and often where review reports are made public alongside the article. Transparency is the key goal. For instance, journals may publish reviewer comments and author responses with the final paper, so readers see the full review history.

Advantages: Openness encourages accountability and civility. Knowing their names will be attached to reviews, reviewers tend to give more thorough, constructive feedback. Publishing the review report can educate readers and future researchers, as it exposes the questions and concerns raised during review. In turn, reviewers get credit for their work, since contributions are public. Overall, open review can improve trust in the process.

Disadvantages: Some reviewers may decline to participate, fearing backlash or harm to relationships if they give critical feedback. Reviewers might also soften critiques of powerful senior researchers, knowing their identities are known. Publishing reviews adds pressure on reviewers to be polished and may increase the time they spend on formatting, which can discourage busy scholars.

Open peer review is gaining traction, especially in open-access and progressive journals (e.g. PLOS, eLife, BMJ). It’s best for maximizing transparency and reviewer recognition, but it requires a culture where frank critique by known individuals is accepted.

Collaborative Peer Review

In collaborative peer review, multiple reviewers (and sometimes authors) work together interactively on the review. For example, journals like Frontiers begin with independent reviews, then have reviewers and authors discuss and resolve issues in a private forum. Other models (e.g. eLife) involve reviewers and editors meeting to agree on a single consensus report. The goal is to turn peer review into a constructive dialogue rather than a series of isolated opinions.

Advantages: Collaboration can be more constructive and inclusive. All parties discuss the manuscript together, “allowing all voices to be heard” before deciding. This dialog-driven process can clarify misunderstandings quickly, improve the manuscript more effectively, and remove barriers between authors and reviewers.

Disadvantages: There are trade-offs. Strong personalities or senior researchers might dominate discussions, potentially sidelining other viewpoints. Independent evaluations can get lost in a push for consensus. Also, reaching agreement through debate can be time-consuming, sometimes lengthening the review process considerably.

Collaborative review works well for complex or interdisciplinary papers where back-and-forth discussion adds value. It’s ideal when improvement through dialogue is more important than quick turnaround. But for routine submissions, the added time and need for coordination may be drawbacks.

Post-Publication Peer Review

Post-publication review allows ongoing critique and revision after an article is published. In this model, the paper is often posted quickly (sometimes after only a cursory editorial check) and the community is invited to comment, review, or formally rate it on a public platform. Examples include F1000Research and ScienceOpen, which use post-publication review as part of an open-science model.

Advantages: It accelerates dissemination of research by separating publication from review. The wider community of readers (not just selected reviewers) can point out flaws or suggest improvements, potentially catching errors traditional peer review misses. Open forums for discussion can foster new ideas, further experiments, or collaborations. This model reflects science as an evolving dialogue, not a one-time event.

Disadvantages: The quality of feedback can be uneven. Some commenters may lack the necessary expertise, leading to irrelevant or low-quality remarks. Without formal guidelines, comments can be disorganized or biased. Also, allowing revisions after publication conflicts with the traditional notion of a single “version of record,” and may cause confusion about which version is authoritative.

Post-publication review suits fast-moving fields (e.g. bioinformatics, physics preprints) where rapid sharing is crucial. It complements, rather than replaces, traditional review by enabling continual vetting. Its best use-case is in open-access environments where the goal is continuous community engagement, but it requires platforms to curate and moderate feedback for quality.

Editorial Review vs. External Peer Review

Before formal peer review, most journals perform an editorial review (sometimes called a “desk review”). Editors (or editorial staff) initially screen submissions for basic suitability: they check if the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, meets ethical standards, and uses proper language and structure. They run similarity checks for plagiarism, verify ethical approvals, and ensure the topic aligns with the journal. If a paper has glaring issues or is out of scope, editors may desk reject it at this stage. This saves reviewers’ time by filtering out unsuitable manuscripts early.

If the paper passes the editorial filter, it moves to external peer review. In this stage, the editor selects independent experts (often 2–3 reviewers) in the field. These reviewers perform an in-depth evaluation of the study’s methodology, data, and conclusions. The key difference is that editorial review is an internal check (by the journal’s editorial team) for compliance and fit, while external review is an independent scientific assessment by outside peers.

Editorial Review (Desk): Quick, often within days, ensures format, ethics, and scope. Can result in immediate rejection without outside review.
External Peer Review: Slower, thorough critique by specialists. Provides expert feedback on content, validity, and significance.

Together, these stages ensure both the journal’s standards and scientific rigor are met before publication.

Comparison of Peer Review Models

Review Model	Pros	Cons	Best Use-Cases
Single-blind	- Honest, critical feedback (reviewer anonymous) - Reviewer uses author context for insightful comments	- Bias toward prestigious authors; possible discrimination - Author identity may unduly influence review	Well-established labs and fields where reviewer candor is needed; common in sciences.
Double-blind	- Reduces bias by hiding author identity - Reviewers and authors protected from personal conflict	- True anonymity hard (self-citations reveal identity) - Review lacks author context, possibly less informed	Fields concerned about bias (gender, nationality); journals prioritizing fairness.
Open/Transparent	- Full accountability; reviewers sign reviews - Public reports educate readers; reviewers get credit	- Reviewers may soften criticism; fear repercussions - Extra time needed for polished, public reviews	Open-access and progressive journals; fostering openness and reviewer recognition.
Collaborative	- Constructive dialogue; multiple voices heard - Unified, consensus-driven feedback	- Consensus may suppress minority views - Slower process due to discussion time	Interdisciplinary or complex papers; when author-reviewer discussion improves quality.
Post-publication	- Rapid sharing; large community finds flaws - Ongoing improvements and ideas through discussion	- Uneven feedback quality; potential misinformation - Version-of-record ambiguity (multiple revisions)	Fast-moving fields, preprints; enabling continuous review and open critique after publication.

Each model balances trade-offs between anonymity vs. transparency, speed vs. thoroughness, and independence vs. collaboration. Journals may choose the approach that best fits their discipline and values. For example, a high-stakes medical journal might prefer double-blind review to reduce bias, while an open-science journal might favor transparent review to promote accountability. Understanding these models helps authors and reviewers navigate the scholarly publishing process and appreciate why different journals adopt different systems.