Peer review, acceptance & rejection guides › Types of Peer Review
Types of peer review compared
| Type | Who knows what | Main advantage | Main concern | Common in |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-blind | Reviewers know the authors; authors do not know the reviewers | Simple; reviewers can judge the authors’ track record | Bias towards famous names or institutions | Most science and engineering journals |
| Double-blind | Neither authors nor reviewers know each other | Reduces bias by name, gender or country | Authors can often still be guessed | Social sciences, humanities, many medical and IEEE journals |
| Triple-blind | Authors, reviewers and the handling editor are anonymous to each other | Least room for bias | More administration; rare | A few journals and conferences |
| Open | Names of authors and reviewers are known; reports may be published | Accountability and credit for reviewers | Some reviewers are less critical when named | Some open-access publishers (e.g. BMJ, F1000) |
| Transparent | Reports and responses are published with the paper; reviewers may stay anonymous | Readers see how the paper improved | Authors must agree to publish reports | Growing at Nature, PLOS, EMBO and others |
| Post-publication | Comments are made after the paper is published | Fast publication; continuous evaluation | Fewer formal checks before publication | Preprint servers and some open platforms |
What peer review looked like in decisions shared on ScholarsColab
Of 168 journal decisions shared anonymously by researchers (updated 18 October 2026), 24 were desk rejections, made by the editor without external review, and 0 were rejections after peer review.
When papers reached reviewers, comments on methodology were common. Real examples, shared anonymously:
“Lack of clarity (simulation vs experiment) and unsupported biosensing claims with weak technical justification.”
“5 to 8 represent approximations that would have to be justified by experimental confirmation with the real materials.”
“analytical/theoretical justification, insufficient novelty, and no experimental validation,”
“While your work demonstrates technical merit in terms of the proposed model and its performance, it does not sufficiently address the intersection of information technology, organizational components, and human factors, which is a core focus of our journal.”
How to tell which type a journal uses
- Read the author guidelines: double-blind journals ask for a separate title page and an anonymised manuscript.
- Check the journal’s editorial policy page, which usually names the review model.
- Look at published papers: transparent and open review journals link the review reports.
Received reviewer comments yourself? Share them anonymously to make this data more useful for everyone.
Frequently asked questions
What are the main types of peer review?
Single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, open, transparent and post-publication peer review. They differ in whether authors, reviewers and editors know each other’s identities and whether the reports are published.
Which type of peer review is most common?
Single-blind peer review is still the most common in science and engineering, while double-blind is common in social sciences, humanities and many medical journals.
What is triple-blind peer review?
In triple-blind review, the authors, the reviewers and the handling editor do not know each other’s identities, which leaves the least room for bias. Few journals use it because it requires extra administration.
How do I prepare a manuscript for double-blind review?
Remove author names, affiliations, acknowledgements and self-identifying references from the manuscript file, and put them on a separate title page as the journal’s guidelines describe.