Peer Review

Peer review is a method of evaluating the validity, quality, and originality of a scientific paper intended for publication through a judgment made by one or more evaluators with similar expertise to the evaluator. The purpose of peer review is to preserve the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or low-quality articles.

The three most common types of peer review are single blind review, double blind review, and open peer review. However, over time new peer review models have been developed such as transparent peer review, collaborative review, post publication review, and cascading peer review. Peer review is constantly evolving; new models and modifications to the more established traditional models are being tested in everyday scholarly activity.

International best practices (OASPA, COPE) agree that an open access publication, whether a monograph, volume essay, or journal paper:

• must clearly and explicitly refer to a peer review policy that describes the characteristics of peer review procedures starting from the type of peer review used.
• must indicate whether the publication underwent a peer review process or not.
• must provide a peer review process external to the scientific committee of a series or journal.
• should not have to guarantee publication times or review times that are too short such that the quality of the evaluation is affected.

Precondition for a proper peer review process is the establishment of a set of rules, procedures, and best practices for identifying and handling allegations of research misconduct (Research Misconduct) codified in a Publication Ethics and Complaint policy.

International best practices (OASPA, COPE) agree that an open access journal or publisher of open access volumes should post on the journal's or publisher's website a Publication Ethics and Complaint policy that defines and regulates:

• potential conflicts of interest and competition among editors, authors and reviewers
• privacy
• challenges and appeals
• reproducibility and data sharing
• options regarding the withdrawal of content or post-publication corrections
• precautions to prevent publication of content obtained through improper research practices: cases of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, redundancy, falsification of data

The international scientific community, universities, and research institutions (The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity) converge in identifying a broader, integrated context within which to place reflection and rules on the proper application of peer review processes and good ethical publication practices, defining codes and governing bodies designed to preserve and promote research integrity and prevent instances of scientific misconduct.

Research Integrity refers to the set of ethical principles and values, ethical duties, and professional standards on which responsible and proper conduct is based by those who conduct, fund, or evaluate scientific research as well as by the institutions that promote and implement it. The application of principles and values and compliance with deontology and professional standards are a guarantee of the very quality of research and help to enhance the reputation and public image of science, with important spillover effects on the scientific community and society.

• Single blind review: the author does not know who the reviewers are.
• Double blind review: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and viceversa.
• Open peer review: the identity of the author and reviewers is known to all involved. In some cases the journal publishes the article along with the reviews, in which case the reader knows both the identity of the reviewer and the reviewer's assessment.
• Transparent peer review: the reviewers' judgments, the authors' responses, and the decisions of the editors of the scientific journal are published along with the accepted articles. This process is compatible with single blind or double blind review. When an author submits an article to the journal, he or she has the option of waiving transparent peer review.
• Collaborative review: this type of peer review covers a wide variety of approaches in which a group of people work together on the review. For example, one type involves two or more reviewers collaborating to review the article, compare notes, and draft a shared judgment. Another approach involves one or more reviewers working with the author to improve the article until it reaches a publishable level.
• Post publication review: the evaluation and revision of a paper continues after publication. Post publication review can take the form of a comments page or a discussion forum that accompanies the published article. Post-publication peer review does not exclude other forms of review and is usually in addition to, not in place of, pre-publication review.
• Cascading Peer-Review: if an article has not been accepted for publication, the journal that rejected it may propose, with the author's consent, the article to another, more suitable journal by transferring along with the article its review judgments to be considered by the new journal.