![\"Peer-300x284\"](\"http:\/\/jmess.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Peer-300x284-300x284.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThere are, essentially, three varieties of peer review. Each type carries with it some clear advantages, as well as some disadvantages:<\/span><\/p>\nSingle Blind Review<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>
\n<\/em>The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is, by far, the most common type.<\/p>\n\n- Advantage:\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions free from influence by the author.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n- Disadvantages:\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Authors fear the risk that reviewers working in the same field may withhold submission of the review in order to delay publication, thereby giving the reviewer the opportunity to publish first.<\/li>\n
- Reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the author\u2019s work.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Double Blind Review<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>
Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.\u00a0<\/span>
<\/p>\n\n- Advantages:\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Author anonymity prevents any reviewer bias based on, for example, an author\u2019s country of origin or previous controversial work.<\/li>\n
- Articles written by \u2018prestigious\u2019 or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than on the author\u2019s reputation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n- Disadvantage:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- It is uncertain whether a paper can ever truly be \u2018blind\u2019 \u2013 especially in specialty \u2018niche\u2019 areas. Reviewers can often identify the author through the paper\u2019s style, subject matter or self-citation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Open Review<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span>
Reviewer and author are known to each other.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n\n- Advantage:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Some scientists feel this is the best way to prevent malicious comments, stop plagiarism, prevent reviewers from drawing upon their own \u2018agenda\u2019 and encourage open, honest reviewing.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n- Disadvantage:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n- Others argue the opposite view. They see open review as a less honest process in which politeness or fear of retribution may cause a reviewer to withhold or tone down criticism. For example, junior reviewers may hesitate to criticize more esteemed authors for fear of damaging their prospects. Independent studies tend to support this.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
![\"Peer-300x284\"](\"http:\/\/jmess.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Peer-300x284.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n