Types of peer review

If you are new to peer review, you may think of it as a single, standardized process: a manuscript is submitted to a journal, reviewers evaluate it, and a decision follows. However, peer review exists in several distinct forms, each shaped by disciplinary norms, publishing models, and evolving ideas about fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Understanding different peer review models is not just helpful background knowledge. It directly affects how you approach a manuscript, frame your feedback, and relate to editors and authors. The level of anonymity involved, the visibility of your comments, and even the tone you adopt can vary significantly depending on the type of peer review followed by the publication.

Single-blind peer review

In this system, reviewers know the identity of the author(s), but authors do not know who reviewed their work.

For peer reviewers, this model often feels familiar and straightforward. Knowing who conducted the research can provide useful context. You may recognize prior work from the same group, understand the methodological evolution, or see how a study builds on earlier publications.

At the same time, this knowledge comes with responsibility. Awareness of an authors’ reputation, institution, or seniority can unintentionally influence judgment. Reviewers may unconsciously be more forgiving of established researchers or more critical of unfamiliar names. Because reviewer identities are protected, there is also a risk of overly blunt or dismissive feedback.

If you are reviewing in a single-blind system, it is especially important to pause and ask yourself whether your comments are grounded in the manuscript itself rather than in perceptions based on your knowledge of who wrote it.

Double-blind peer review

Double-blind peer review aims to address some of these concerns by concealing identities on both sides. Reviewers do not know who the authors are, and authors do not know who the reviewers are. Double-blind review can be particularly valuable early in your reviewing career, as it reinforces the habit of evaluating manuscripts on their merits alone.

Many journals adopt this model to promote fairness and inclusivity, particularly when they receive submissions from a wide range of geographic regions or career stages. For reviewers, double-blind review encourages a sharper focus on the clarity of the argument, the rigor of the methods, and the strength of the evidence, without the influence of reputation or institutional prestige.

In practice, perfect anonymity can be difficult to achieve. In specialized fields, writing style, self-citations, or distinctive datasets may make it possible to guess the authors’ identity. However, the intent of the model matters. As a reviewer, your role is to engage with the work as presented and avoid speculation about who might be behind it.

Triple-blind peer review

Triple-blind peer review takes anonymity one step further by concealing the identities of authors, reviewers, and editors from one another during the evaluation process. This model is relatively rare, largely because it is complex to administer.

Its primary goal is to reduce the possibility of bias at every stage, including editorial handling. While reviewers may not experience this model very differently from double-blind review, it reflects a broader commitment to procedural fairness. The expectations from peer review remain the same: careful reading, evidence-based critique, and respectful communication.

Open peer review

Open peer review represents a significant shift away from anonymity. Rather than a single, fixed definition, openness can take several forms. Reviewer names may be disclosed to authors or readers, peer review reports may be published alongside the article, or readers may be invited to comment after publication.

For reviewers, open peer review can be both empowering and demanding. On the positive side, it enables their intellectual contribution to be visible. Thoughtful reviews can demonstrate scholarly rigor, and help others learn from the evaluation process. Authors also gain clearer insight into how the feedback shaped the final manuscript.

However, openness can change how feedback is delivered. Reviewers may feel hesitant to critique work by senior or influential researchers, or may soften comments to avoid potential conflict. In highly competitive fields, the visibility of reviews can also create reputational pressure.

In open peer review, professionalism plays a more important role. Clear reasoning, constructive language, and a focus on improving the work are essential, not just for the author, but for anyone who may later read your comments.

Hybrid and semi-open approaches

Recognizing that full openness is not suitable for every context, many journals adopt hybrid models. In some cases, authors may know reviewer identities, but reviews are not made public. In others, anonymous review reports are published without naming reviewers.

These approaches attempt to balance transparency with reviewer comfort.

Post-publication peer review

Post-publication peer review shifts the timing of evaluation. Instead of serving as a gatekeeping step before publication, review becomes an ongoing process that continues after a paper is made publicly available.

This model supports the rapid dissemination of research and encourages community engagement. Readers can comment, critique, and build on the findings in real time. For authors, this can be both valuable and challenging, as feedback is visible and continuous.

For reviewers, post-publication peer review often feels less formal, but this does not diminish its importance. Peer review comments still shape how a manuscript is interpreted and used. Thoughtful, evidence-based contributions help maintain quality and foster constructive scientific dialogue.

Collaborative and community peer review

In collaborative or community-based models, multiple reviewers and editors may discuss a manuscript together, sometimes producing a unified set of comments. This approach reduces duplication and can be especially educational for early-career reviewers, who gain insight into how others read and evaluate the same work.

Participating in collaborative review requires openness to discussion and compromise. Rather than focusing solely on an individual report, reviewers contribute to a collective assessment that aims to be coherent and balanced.

AI-assisted peer review

Artificial intelligence is being increasingly used in peer review. Use of AI in peer review range from supporting it (instead of replacing, human peer review) to providing AI-generated review reports. Automated tools may screen submissions for plagiarism, flag missing citations, identify reporting gaps, or highlight potential data issues. In some cases, these systems may be used to generate a summary of the manuscript to help the reviewer get an overview of the manuscript.

AI-powered tools can be helpful, freeing reviewers to concentrate on interpretation, logic, and scientific contribution. At the same time, they do not absolve reviewers of responsibility. Critical judgment, contextual understanding, and ethical reasoning remain firmly human tasks.

Choosing the right mindset as a reviewer

Different peer review models ask for different forms of engagement, but the underlying purpose remains the same: to help authors improve their work and to support the integrity of the scholarly record.

By understanding how each model functions, you can adapt your approach with confidence. Whether your name is hidden or visible, whether your comments are private or public, your responsibility is to offer fair, thoughtful, and constructive feedback. In doing so, you contribute not just to a single manuscript, but to a research culture built on trust, rigor, and mutual respect.