Single-anonymous
The reviewers know who the authors are, including their names and institutions, but the authors do not know who the reviewers are.
Authors do not need to anonymise their manuscript
Potential for reviewer bias either for or against the authors
Double-anonymous
In double-anonymous review, both the authors and reviewers do not know about each other’s affiliations
Unbiased, focused on scientific merit alone
Difficult to mask identity of all authors in some instances
Open peer review
In open peer review, the identities of all the reviewers are made public after the manuscript is published.
Reviewers are more accountable for their comments.
The entire peer review process, including the reports and everyone's identities, is transparent and available to the public.
Reviewers receive recognition for their work.
Reviewers could fear criticising senior researchers and receiving retribution.
Post-publication peer review
It occurs after the article has been published.
Engagement of wider scientific community.
Evolution of knowledge over time.
Authors can ignore criticism, even if serious errors are revealed.
No threshold for a reviewer’s expertise or subject knowledge.