Academic Events & Conventions

UNIT 2
Academic Chair and Article

TOPIC 1
PEER REVIEWERS’ PROFILE

Ing. Diana Terán M., MSc.

 Learning objective
• Students will be able to recognize the different profiles
that a peer reviewer has.
 Subtopics
Subtopic: 1.- Single-Anonymous
Suptopic: 2.- Double-Anonymous
Subtopic: 3.- Open peer
Subtopic: 4.- Post-Publication

3
 Answer this question:
What is peer reviewing?
 SUBTOPIC 1: Single-Anonymous
In this type of peer review the author does not know who
the reviewers are. This is the most common form of peer
review among science journals.
 Pros
• The anonymity allows the reviewer to be honest
without fear of criticism from an author.
• Knowing who the author is (and their affiliation) allows
the reviewer to use their knowledge of the author's
previous research.

6
 Cons
● Knowledge of the author may overshadow the quality
of the work - potentially leading to a lack of scrutiny,
especially if it's the work of an author with a dazzling
track record.

7
● There is the potential for discrimination based on
gender or nationality. Discrimination based on non-
scientific criteria is clearly unacceptable, but in the case
of perceived discrimination on the basis of nationality it
is often conflated with discrimination on the basis of
bad English. A reviewer might receive too many
manuscripts written in bad English from a particular
country and might subconsciously develop a particular
negative sensitivity to anything from that country.

8
For individual researchers, the best way to rule out
this kind of discrimination is to make sure that
your article is written in the best possible English,
thereby demonstrating sensitivity for the time and
effort that a reviewer will expend on assessing it.

9
 SUBTOPIC 2: Double-Anonymous
● In this type of peer review the reviewers don't know the
identity of authors, and vice versa. This is the most
common form of peer review amongst social science
and humanities journals.

10
 Pros
• Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the
equation
• Author and reviewer benefit from some level of
protection against criticism

11
 Cons
• Anonymity isn't guaranteed, as it could be
fairly straightforward to discover the
identity of the author (either because of
the area of research, the references or the
writing style)
• Some argue that knowledge of the author's
identity helps the reviewer come to a more
informed judgement - and that without this
the review suffers
12
 SUBTOPIC 3: Open peer
● The identity of the author and the reviewers are known by all
participants. There is a growing minority of journals using this
form of peer review but popularity among reviewers is yet to
be proven. Some journals may also publish the reviews
together with final articles, and so readers see both the
identity of the reviewers and their comments. This is only the
case, however, with accepted articles.

13
 Pros
• The transparency of open peer review
encourages accountability and civility,
generally improving the overall quality
of the review and article
• Reviewers are more motivated to do a
thorough job since their names and
sometimes comments appear as part
of the accepted, published article
14
 Cons
• Some reviewers might refuse to review for a
journal using an open system, due to
concerns about being identified as the source
of a negative review
• Reviewers could be reluctant to criticize the
work of more senior researchers - especially
if their career depends on them. In smaller
research communities and in some regions of
the world this could be a significant problem
15
 SUBTOPIC 4: Post-Publication
● With this type of peer review, the option for appraisal and
revision of a paper continues - or occurs - after
publication. This may take the form of a comments page
or discussion forum alongside the published paper.
Crucially, post publication peer review does not exclude
other forms of peer review and is usually in addition to,
rather than instead of, pre-publication review.

16
 Pros
• This approach reflects the evolving nature of knowledge
• It gives the opportunity for papers to be corrected or improved

17
 Cons
• Some reviewers might refuse to review for
a journal using an open system, due to
concerns about being identified as the
source of a negative review
• Reviewers could be reluctant to criticize the
work of more senior researchers -
especially if their career depends on them.
In smaller research communities and in
some regions of the world this could be a 18
REFLECTION: Closing Thoughts
1. What is the importance of peer reviewing?
2. Which profile do you consider more interesting?
3. Mention 1 pro and 1 con of each peer reviewer profile.
20