---
title: "Scholarly peer review"
chunk: 5/12
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Internal and external peer review ===
External peer review is the ordinary process of peer review for scholarly journals.  The first evidence of formal external peer reviews dates back to 1752, and it became widely used and more standardized after World War II.  In this process, scholars who are not beholden to the journal or the author review submitted articles, and in doing so, restrain academic and scientific journals from using solely their own commercial interests as a guide on what to publish.  Nature began requiring external peer review in 1973, and other journals quickly followed suit.
Internal peer review is having a colleague in the same department or academic institution read over a paper before submitting it to a journal for external peer review.  For example, economists in the same government agency may review their peers' papers, as a type of peer professional accountability. People such as Nobel laureate Dan Shechtman and organizations such as the US National Institute of Standards and Technology use internal peer review because they believe that it gives them an opportunity to improve papers before submitting them to a journal.  Internal peer review is also recommended for authors with weak writing skills.  Unlike external peer review, internal peer reviewers do not have any distance from institutional goals and are not as effective as independent external reviewers at mitigating conflicts of interest.  Internal peer reviewers also suffer from an in-house expert bias, thus overlooking problems that would be spotted by someone outside the organization or by someone from an adjacent academic discipline.  Internal peer review has also been used to improve the quality of research grant applications.
The phrase internal peer review is also used to describe post-submission review by a journal's editors, before sending them out for external peer review.  The Health Policy and Planning journal, for example, reports that 60% of submitted articles are rejected by the editors because the submissions are not appropriate for the journal (e.g., the submitted paper does not discuss any health policies).

=== Anonymous and attributed ===
For most scholarly publications, the identity of the reviewers is kept anonymised (also called "blind peer review"). The alternative, attributed peer review involves revealing the identities of the reviewers. Some reviewers choose to waive their right to anonymity, even when the journal's default format is blind peer review.
In anonymous peer review, reviewers are known to the journal editor or conference organiser but their names are not given to the article's author. In some cases, the author's identity can also be anonymised for the review process, with identifying information stripped from the document before review. The system is intended to reduce or eliminate bias.
Some experts proposed blind review procedures for reviewing controversial research topics.
In double-blind peer review, which has been fashioned by sociology journals in the 1950s and remains more common in the social sciences and humanities than in the natural sciences, the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers ("blinded"), and vice versa, lest the knowledge of authorship or concern about disapprobation from the author bias their review. Critics of the double-blind review process point out that, despite any editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person.
In many fields of "big science", the publicly available operation schedules of major equipments, such as telescopes or synchrotrons, would make the authors' names obvious to anyone who would care to look them up. Proponents of double-blind review argue that it performs no worse than single-blind, and that it generates a perception of fairness and equality in academic funding and publishing. Single-blind review is strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants, but no more so than double-blind review with easily identified authors.
As an alternative to single-blind and double-blind review, authors and reviewers are encouraged to declare their conflicts of interest when the names of authors and sometimes reviewers are known to the other. When conflicts are reported, the conflicting reviewer can be prohibited from reviewing and discussing the manuscript, or his or her review can instead be interpreted with the reported conflict in mind; the latter option is more often adopted when the conflict of interest is mild, such as a previous professional connection or a distant family relation. The incentive for reviewers to declare their conflicts of interest is a matter of professional ethics and individual integrity. Even when the reviews are not public, they are still a matter of record and the reviewer's credibility depends upon how they represent themselves among their peers. Some software engineering journals, such as the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, use non-blind reviews with reporting to editors of conflicts of interest by both authors and reviewers.
A more rigorous standard of accountability is known as an audit. Because reviewers are not paid, they cannot be expected to put as much time and effort into a review as an audit requires. Therefore, academic journals such as Science, organizations such as the American Geophysical Union, and agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation maintain and archive scientific data and methods in the event another researcher wishes to replicate or audit the research after publication.
The traditional anonymous peer review has been criticized for its lack of accountability, the possibility of abuse by reviewers or by those who manage the peer review process (that is, journal editors), its possible bias, and its inconsistency, alongside other flaws. Eugene Koonin, a senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, asserts that the system has "well-known ills" and advocates "open peer review".

=== Open peer review ===