Generally people have misconceptions regarding the peer review procedure. We are here to clarify the doubts of our readers by providing the brief about our review process, its history and the types of reviews that are undertaken by IJISRT to generate a good review.

Types of Peer Review

Peer reviews are categorised in three varieties with each having its own pros and cons:

Single Blind Review

The commonly used review technique is the single blind review where the names of the reviewers are not disclosed. This reviewing method is the most traditional one.

Advantage

The author cannot influence the reviewers thus keeping the reviewers away from any kind of partiality.

Disadvantage

Since the reviewers are anonymous, the authors are afraid of unnecessary rejections or delays in publications. The reviewers on the name of anonymity can justify their harsh commenting or criticism on the work of the authors. Besides this, here the reviewer has the right to delay the publication by keeping his review on hold and may get the paper published first on his name.

Double Blind Review

Here the identities of both, the reviewer and the author are hidden.

Advantage

The reputation, country of origin, the past controversial works and other details related to the author are kept hidden thus preventing any bias decisions from the reviewer. The papers are reviewed purely on the basis of the content and are free from the influence of the authors.

Disadvantage

The proximity of keeping the paper blind is uncertain. The writing style, matter and the self citation can give a hint to the reviewer about the author.

Open Review

As the name suggests, the reviewer and the author are known to each other.

Advantage

The honest reviews are expected in this kind of reviewing technique. This prevents reviewers from giving malicious comments and settling their own grudges in the form of reviews.

Disadvantage

The open reviewing process may lead to bias reviews influenced by the fear of vengeance or politeness. Like, an upcoming reviewer may hesitate in giving the honest reviews on the work of the senior or esteemed authors for fear of damaging their verdicts.