How peer-review models work: blind, double-blind and open

Editorial & peer review · editorial note

Peer review is the process by which independent specialists assess a manuscript before it is accepted. Journals arrange that assessment in different ways, and the main difference lies in what reviewers know about the authors and what authors later learn about the reviewers. The choice of model affects candour, accountability and the tone of reports, and no single format is perfect. This page explains the common models, what each one changes and what you should confirm on the journal's official pages.

What every review model has in common

Whatever the labels, some things are constant. One or more independent experts read the manuscript closely, judge its method, evidence and clarity, and report to an editor. The editor weighs those reports and reaches a decision, which may be acceptance, revision or rejection.

The model only changes who is visible to whom. It does not change the requirement that the assessment be impartial and well informed.

Single-blind review

In single-blind review, reviewers know who wrote the manuscript while authors do not know who reviewed it. This has long been the default in many fields. Its appeal is that reviewers can identify an author's earlier work and compare the new claims with it, while remaining protected from pressure.

The obvious weakness is that anonymity is one-sided. Aware of the author's identity, a reviewer may be influenced by reputation, whether favourably or unfavourably, and the author has no way to respond to the person who judged the work.

Double-blind review

In double-blind review, neither side knows the other. Reviewers assess what is on the page without knowing the author's name or institution, and this is intended to reduce bias linked to reputation, gender, institution or country. It also shifts attention onto the quality of the reported work.

Double-blind review is harder to operate, because authors must remove identifying details and reviewers may still guess the source from a distinctive method or sample. Its success depends on both sides following the journal's anonymisation rules carefully.

Open and transparent review

A third family of models makes parts of the process visible. Reviewers may be named, reports may be published alongside accepted articles, or the exchange between author and reviewer may appear as part of the record. The aim is accountability, on the reasoning that signed assessments tend to be more constructive.

Some journals combine these ideas, for example by keeping reviewers anonymous to authors but publishing anonymised reports. Openness can improve behaviour, but it can also make some reviewers more cautious, which is the trade-off editors weigh.

Comparing the main models

The table below summarises the common formats and what each one changes. The exact arrangement, and the names used for it, are always the ones the journal states officially.

Model	Who knows what	Main advantage
Single-blind	Reviewer knows author; author does not	Reviewer can place work in context
Double-blind	Neither knows the other	Reduces reputation-linked bias
Open identities	Both sides are named	Accountability for the report
Transparent reports	Reports published with the article	Visible reasoning behind decisions
Post-publication review	Comment after publication	Ongoing scrutiny of the record

What the model means for authors

The review model affects how you prepare your manuscript. Under double-blind review you must anonymise the text, figures and file properties, and avoid phrasing that names your group. Under open review you may want to phrase your responses with the knowledge that they could be read more widely later.

Knowing the model also sets your expectations. A double-blind report should not lean on who you are, and if it does, that is a fair point to raise. Under open review, a politely argued and well-evidenced reply carries particular weight.

What to confirm before you submit

Because the label alone does not tell you how a journal actually operates, check the specifics. The following are the points worth confirming in the journal's own description.

Which review model applies and what each party can see.
Whether reviewers must declare competing interests.
How many reviewers usually assess a manuscript.
Whether reports or reviewer names may be published.
How you may respond to or appeal a decision.

Choosing between models is a trade-off

There is no model that removes every source of bias or every risk of a weak report. Single-blind review protects reviewers and informs them; double-blind review shields authors from reputation effects; open review creates accountability. Journals choose according to their community and their values.

For an author, the practical response is the same in each case: present the work clearly, report it honestly, and answer criticism on the evidence. The model is set by the publisher and can change, so read the journal's official pages and follow the current description rather than assuming a particular format.

Peer-review models differ mainly in who is visible to whom, and each format trades one kind of protection against another. What does not change is that an independent expert judgement informs an editor's decision. Check which model your target journal uses, prepare your manuscript accordingly, and confirm the current arrangement on the journal's official pages.

Research integrity. Sound science rests on honest reporting, transparent methods and respect for ethical standards. Nothing on this site replaces the journal’s official instructions or the policies of your institution. When in doubt, confirm the current requirements with the editorial office and check the journal’s official pages.