Types of Peer Review Models for Health Science Articles
Journals rely on four (4) types of peer review models to assess several factors in health science articles before publication. These models help health science journals review articles before publication to assess their relevance and validity. Peer review models also help journals select articles that align with their aim and objectives before publication.
Let’s check out the types of peer review models and other essential details journals must consider to select health science articles for publishing.
Types of Peer Review Models for Health Science Articles
1. Open Peer Review
The open peer review model is a public collaboration between reviewers and authors throughout the assessment process. Open peer reviews aim to foster transparency at all stages of the assessment process.
Some features of an open peer review include:
- Opportunities for authors to engage reviewers directly to address any issues with submitted articles,
- Information about reviewers identities are made public to limit the chances of harsh critique,
- An avenue for readers to witness the entire evaluation process to boost transparency
Many commentators believe the open peer review model may cause self-censorship in some assessments. Academics also believe that open peer review models may cause hesitation in authors keen to criticize harsh assessments of their submitted articles.
2. Single-Blind Peer Review
In the single-blind peer review model, authors know the identities of reviewers. However, reviewers do not know the identities of authors whose articles are under assessment. It is the most common form of peer reviews adopted by health science journals.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
The double-blind peer review model shields the identities of reviewers and authors from both parties. Double-blind peer review models aim to foster unbiasedness while assessing the manuscript before publication.
4. Post-Publication Peer Review
The post-publication peer review model grants reviewers greater freedom to access and review published articles. Several online and preprint journals have a post-publication peer review model available for ongoing assessments.
Post-publication peer reviews are conducted through formal reviews, discussions, and comments on published articles. These reviews allow readers contribute their perspectives about published articles directly to authors. It also allows readers engage in dialogue or identify gaps and errors in conducted research.
Most journals do not recognize this peer review model based on its high potential bias in responses and poor quality control safeguards. Journals do not include these comments and suggestions in official citation numbers of an article.
Can Journals Choose their Preferred Peer Review Model to Assess Articles?
Journals have the freedom to select their preferred peer review model to assess all submitted articles before publishing. The selection of a particular peer review model hinges on factors like:
- the scope of a journal,
- editorial policy of the journal,
- disciplinary norms of the journal, and
- preferences of the editorial board
Journals also have the liberty to use one peer review model or combine elements of multiple options to create a unique assessment tool. These journals can create hybrid peer-review models to align with the requirements and goals to approve articles for publishing.
How do journals decide on the best peer review model?
Journals consider several points to choose the best peer review model to assess submitted articles before publication.
Reviewer/author anonymity
Some journals could prioritize the need to keep reviewers anonymous to preserve the integrity of each evaluation. Unbiased evaluations are easier to manage when authors do not know the identities of reviewers.
Other journals may also choose to keep both identities (reviewers and authors) secret at all stages of the assessment.
Transparency
The need for transparent assessment of an article may prompt journals to choose an open peer review. Open reviews allow public discussions about research between reviewers and authors.
Ongoing evaluations
Some journals select peer review models to boost ongoing evaluations and engagement on certain points of a research even after publication.
Can the choice of peer review model influence how journals assess articles?
The choice of a peer review model can directly influence how published articles get assessment. It also affects public perception of journals and the quality of published articles.
Journals should carefully assess the limitations and strengths of each peer review model before choosing the best option(s) to assess articles. Also, journals should choose a peer review model that aligns with ethical standards. These standards should conform to guidelines set by the publishing industry and health science community.
Steps Journals Should Take to Choose a Peer Review Model for Health Science Articles
Journals should take the following steps while choosing a peer review model for health science articles:
Assess scope and objectives:
Journals should consider specific objectives within the health sciences to determine an ideal peer review model. The model should align with the mission of your journal and help drive its main aim and goals from each peer-reviewed publication.
Consider disciplinary practices:
All journals should closely consider the expectations and best practices within the health science community. Considering this point will help ensure that a chosen peer review model conforms to established standards in the health sciences. Ignoring best practices in the health science discipline while choosing a peer review model could trigger disciplinary issues.
Evaluate editorial policies:
Journals should also review existing editorial guidelines to examine how different peer review models could conform to or misalign with existing policies. Editorial policies most journals consider include author transparency, disclosure of any conflict of interest, and reviewer anonymity.
Assess the journal’s resources and infrastructure:
Journals should evaluate the following resources before selecting a suitable peer review model to assess submitted articles:
- experience of editorial board,
- consensus decision of editorial board concerning suitable model,
- reviewer pool, and
- access to technology
The assessment of these element help determine if a preferred model will receive proper implementation. It also helps publishers know if additional resources are necessary to operate a suitable peer review model.
Final Word
A journal’s editorial board is responsible for several crucial roles in the selection of an ideal peer review model. The board should provide perspectives, insights, and recommendations on various peer review models. Editorial boards usually base their advice on experience and amassed knowledge on the subject matter in health science research.
Also, journals should seek feedback from expert researchers, review pros and cons of each model, run a pilot test to assess preferred peer review models, and refine the model to fit specific needs.