Author action for each type of peer review
Single blind peer review
- Ensure your research addresses a significant research question.
- Review the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements.
- Conduct thorough proofreading and editing.
- Be patient, as the process may take time.
- Address reviewer comments constructively and promptly.
- Clarify any points of confusion or disagreement with reviewers.
- Consider revising your manuscript based on feedback while maintaining the integrity of your work.
- Revise your manuscript based on reviewer feedback if accepted.
- If rejected, carefully consider the feedback and decide whether to resubmit elsewhere or make improvements for future submissions.
Double blind peer review
- Prepare a blinded manuscript (remove author names and affiliations).
- Ensure your research is presented clearly without revealing your identity.
- Review the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements.
- Conduct thorough proofreading and editing.
- Be patient, as the process may take time.
- Respond to reviewer comments professionally without attempting to discover their identities.
- Clarify any points of confusion or disagreement with reviewers without revealing your identity.
- Consider revising your manuscript based on feedback while maintaining the integrity of your work.
- Revise your manuscript based on reviewer feedback if accepted.
- If rejected, carefully consider the feedback and decide whether to resubmit elsewhere or make improvements for future submissions.
Open peer review
- Prepare a well-structured and clear manuscript.
- Ensure your research addresses a significant research question.
- Review the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements.
- Be prepared for a more transparent process, as your identity may be known to reviewers and the public.
- Engage actively in discussions with reviewers and other participants.
- Address reviewer comments professionally and openly.
- Be open to feedback and discussions, recognizing that your identity may be known.
- Be respectful and professional in public interactions.
- Revise your manuscript based on reviewer feedback if accepted.
- If rejected, carefully consider the feedback and decide whether to resubmit elsewhere or make improvements for future submissions.
Post publication peer review
- Be open to feedback and critiques from the community.
- Actively monitor comments and discussions related to your article.
- Consider making corrections or updates to your work based on valid feedback.
- Engage with readers and reviewers to address questions or concerns.
In all cases, professionalism, respect for reviewers, and a commitment to improving the quality of your research should guide your actions throughout the peer review process.
Ethical peer review identity management
If the identity of a reviewer is accidentally revealed to the author during a single or double blind peer review process, or if the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer, it's essential to handle the situation professionally and ethically. Here's what an author should do in such cases:
If the identity of a reviewer is revealed to the author:
-
Maintain Confidentiality: If you, as the author, accidentally discover the identity of a reviewer, it's crucial to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process. Do not disclose the reviewer's identity to anyone else.
- Continue with the Review Process: Proceed with the peer review process as if you had not learned the reviewer's identity. This means addressing their comments and feedback professionally and constructively.
- Notify the editor or the publisher: Contact the journal's editor or the publisher immediately to inform them of the accidental disclosure. They will likely take steps to address the situation and ensure the integrity of the review process.
- Avoid bias: Be aware of the potential for bias due to the accidental revelation of the reviewer's identity. Make a conscious effort to provide unbiased responses to the reviewer's comments and maintain the highest ethical standards in your communication.
If the author's identity is revealed to the reviewer:
-
Maintain professionalism: If you, as the author, believe that your identity has been disclosed to a reviewer, remain professional and do not attempt to contact the reviewer directly.
- Continue with review: Continue with the review process as usual, providing feedback and comments based on the manuscript's quality and content, not the author's identity.
- Notify the editor or the publisher: Contact the journal's editor or the publisher to report the situation. They will assess the situation and take appropriate actions to ensure the confidentiality of the review process.
- Avoid bias: Recognize that the reviewer may now be aware of your identity, potentially introducing bias into the review process. However, it is still important to address the reviewer's comments professionally and constructively.
In both cases, the journal's editorial team and publisher are typically responsible for managing and addressing any breaches of confidentiality. Their primary goal is to maintain the integrity of the peer review process and ensure fairness for all parties involved. Authors should focus on providing constructive responses to reviewer comments and allowing the journal's staff to handle any unintended disclosures of identities.
