Journals evaluate articles based on two key criteria: first, the overall quality of the work, including its originality, methodology, and clarity of presentation; and second, its alignment with the journal's editorial scope and focus. The peer review process is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality, innovative research that advances the field.
There are different types of peer review, which vary based on several factors:
- Type of blindness (who knows whom)
- Number of peer reviewers
- Number of review rounds
- Timing of the review (before or after publication)
Based on the type of blindness, reviews can be classified as:
-
Single-blind: Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
-
Double-blind: Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. The manuscript must remain anonymous, with experts or reviewers evaluating the article separately, focusing on its ideas, results, and potential impact on the field of science.
-
Open: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are known to all participants throughout the review process.
There are several alternatives aimed at improving the traditional expert peer review system. Some of the proposals include paying for the work of reviewers, eliminating reviewers and having the scientific community itself evaluate science, enhancing the "double-blind" system to avoid potential interpersonal conflicts, and promoting open peer review.
Among all these, open peer review stands out for its potential: by opening up this traditionally closed process, the aim is to expand opportunities for error detection, validate conclusions, and increase global trust in the published results. For this reason, it forms part of the strategic framework for Open Science.
