Peer review: How research earns trust

Why peer review still matters

Peer review does more than safeguard quality. It connects researchers across communities, sharpens thinking and drives the critical dialogue that moves research forward. A 2015 survey by the Publishing Research Consortiumopens in new tab/window found that 82% of researchers agreed that without peer review, there is no control in scientific communication. Elsevier shares that view. It is why we rely on peer review to uphold the quality and validity of every article and journal we publish.

Despite ongoing debate about its limits, peer review remains the most widely accepted way to evaluate research. Knowing how it works, and which model a journal uses, helps both authors and reviewers get more from it.

Want to go deeper? Explore Elsevier’s free e-learning platform, Researcher Academyopens in new tab/window, for a comprehensive introduction to the fundamentals of peer reviewopens in new tab/window.

Types of peer review

Different journals use different peer review models, and each comes with its own trade-offs. Before you submit or agree to review a paper, it is worth checking which model the journal uses, since the approach shapes the experience for both authors and reviewers. If you are unsure, consult the journal’s guide for authors or contact the editorial office directly.

1. Single anonymized review: the most widely used model

The reviewer’s identity is hidden from the author throughout the process. This traditional approach remains by far the most common. Reviewer anonymity supports impartial decisions, free from potential author pushback, though it can occasionally give cover to harsher-than-necessary criticism. Some authors also worry that reviewers may use anonymity to delay publication in favor of their own competing work. These are known limitations of the model, and journals that use it are generally aware of them.

2. Double anonymized review: reducing bias on both sides

Both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout. Removing author identity helps limit bias based on gender, country of origin, academic status or publication history, meaning research from high-profile authors is evaluated on its merits rather than their reputation. In practice, however, reviewers can often identify authors through writing style, subject matter or self-citation, so total anonymity is difficult to guarantee.

See our double-anonymized peer review guidelines for more.

3. Triple anonymized review: the most protected model

In this model, neither the author's nor the reviewer's identity is visible to the decision-making editor. The handling editor, who selects and invites reviewers, retains visibility of both. The additional layer of anonymization adds complexity, and as with double anonymized review, complete anonymity cannot be fully guaranteed. This model is less common but used where editorial impartiality is a particular priority.

4. Open review: transparency at every stage

Open peer review covers a range of models, all aimed at making the review process more visible. At its most common, both the reviewer and author know each other’s identity. Other approaches include publishing reviewer names on the article page, sharing peer review reports alongside the article (signed or anonymous), publishing reports with authors’ and editors’ responses attached, and opening papers to community commentary after pre-checks.

Supporters argue that openness deters malicious reviews, discourages plagiarism and promotes honest, accountable critique. Critics suggest that politeness, or fear of professional repercussions, may cause reviewers to soften legitimate concerns. For three years, five Elsevier journals tested the publication of peer review reports alongside accepted papers on ScienceDirect.

Read about the experiment.

Transparency is at the heart of trust

As calls for greater openness in academic publishing grow, many Elsevier journals now publish the name of the handling editor on ScienceDirect. Some also share the number of reviewers involved before acceptance. Most journals keep reviewers informed about editorial decisions and their peers’ recommendations, because feedback improves the process for everyone involved, not just the author under review.

Explore models of peer review on Researcher Academyopens in new tab/window.