Types of Peer Review in Academic Publishing: Single-Blind, Double-Blind, Open, and More

Not all peer review works the same way. The journal you submit to decides which type applies to your submission, and that changes how you prepare your manuscript, what you strip out before uploading, and what to expect once the paper is under review.

Most researchers figure this out mid-process. This article covers it before that happens.

<CTA title="Write and Review with Confidence" description="Jenni helps you verify claims, strengthen citations, and simulate peer review feedback before you submit." buttonLabel="Try Jenni Free" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />

What Is Peer Review?

Peer review is the process journals use to evaluate research before publication. Once you submit a manuscript, the editor sends it to two or three independent experts in your field. Those experts read it, assess its quality, and return a recommendation: accept, revise, or reject.

The goal is quality control. Peer review acts as a filter that helps journals publish work that is credible, rigorous, and genuinely useful to the field. For examples of peer-reviewed outputs, see Jenni published papers. It has been a formal part of scientific publishing for over 300 years, which makes it older than most modern academic disciplines.

It does not guarantee a paper is flawless. But it means the work has been evaluated by people with enough expertise to spot the problems that actually matter.

The Four Main Types of Peer Review

There are four main types of peer review used across academic publishing today. Each has different rules about who knows what, and each asks something specific from you as the author.

Single-Blind Peer Review

The reviewer knows who you are. You do not know who reviewed your paper.

This is the most common format across scientific and social science journals. The reviewer has full access to your name, institution, and professional background while reading your manuscript. You receive their feedback anonymously.

The upside is context. A reviewer can account for your expertise and prior work when it is relevant. The downside is potential bias. A reviewer might read a paper from a well-known institution more generously, or apply stricter scrutiny to an unfamiliar name, and neither outcome reflects good peer review.

<ProTip title="📌 Note:" description="If your journal uses single-blind review, treat the entire manuscript as something a reviewer will read knowing your name is on it. Presentation and rigor matter cover to cover, not just in the sections you are proud of." />

Double-Blind Peer Review

Neither you nor the reviewer knows each other's identity during the evaluation.

You submit an anonymized version of your manuscript: no name, no institution, no acknowledgements, and no self-citations that reveal who you are. The reviewer evaluates the work without knowing whose it is.

Designed to reduce reviewer bias, double-blind review is standard in many humanities journals and growing across other fields. The intention is to let the research speak for itself.

The trade-off is preparation time. Anonymizing a manuscript properly takes effort. In niche fields it is often not foolproof either, since reviewers sometimes recognize the work from the topic, methodology, or reference patterns alone.

<ProTip title="✅ Checklist:" description="Before submitting to a double-blind journal, remove your name, institution, and acknowledgements from the main document. Then audit your reference list for self-citations that could give you away. Check supplementary files too." />

Open Peer Review

Both the reviewer and the author know each other's identities. In many cases, the review itself is published alongside the final paper after acceptance.

Open peer review is built on transparency and accountability. Reviewers tend to write more careful, constructive feedback when their name is attached to it. According to Springer Nature, more than 700 journals now offer open peer review, a number that has grown significantly over the past decade.

It is most common in medicine and social science, with journals like F1000Research and eLife using it as standard practice.

The concern researchers raise most often is reviewer reluctance. Some people write less critically honest feedback when they know the author will see their name. Whether that holds in practice depends on the field and the journal culture.

<ProTip title="💡 Pro Tip:" description="If you have the option to opt into open review, it is often worth considering. Reviewers in open systems tend to give more detailed and constructive feedback precisely because accountability is built into the process." />

Post-Publication Peer Review

Review happens after the paper is already published, not before.

Platforms like PubPeer allow the academic community to comment on and critique published research at any time. Some journals also use structured post-publication review as an overlay on preprint servers like bioRxiv.

This format is most common in fast-moving fields where the traditional review cycle is too slow to keep pace with the research. It does not replace pre-publication review in most contexts. Instead, it adds an ongoing layer of scrutiny that keeps the conversation around a paper alive after it appears in print.

Which Type Is Most Common?

Single-blind is still the default across most STEM fields. Double-blind is standard in many humanities and social science journals. Open peer review is growing but remains a minority format globally.

<ProTip title="📝 Reminder:" description="Always check the journal author guidelines before submitting. Most journals list their peer review type clearly under the submissions or editorial process section. Submitting without anonymizing to a double-blind journal is one of the most common avoidable reasons a paper gets returned at the editorial stage." />

How Each Type Affects What You Do Before Submitting

Knowing which format your journal uses changes your pre-submission checklist. Before you send anything in, you can also use AI for peer review to simulate reviewer feedback and pressure-test the draft.

⮞ If your journal uses single-blind review:

Your identity is visible from the start. Polish the manuscript end to end. Reviewers see your name and institution, so presentation and rigor matter from the first page to the last.

⮞ If your journal uses double-blind review:

Anonymize thoroughly before you upload. Remove your name, institution, and acknowledgements from the main document. Audit your reference list for self-citations that could reveal your identity, and check supplementary files as well; if you manage citations in Zotero or Mendeley, the Zotero and Mendeley integration can help keep references and metadata clean.

⮞ If your journal uses open review:

Engage with the process as if your response will eventually be public, because it may be. Write your replies the way you would want your name attached to them.

Before you submit to any format, it helps to understand what reviewers look for in your claims and citations so your manuscript is ready for the scrutiny it is about to face.

Know the Process Before You Submit

Understanding which type of peer review your journal uses is not a minor detail. It changes how you prepare, what you remove from your manuscript, and what the review experience will actually feel like on the other side.

<CTA title="Prepare a Stronger Manuscript Before You Submit" description="Jenni Reviews simulates peer reviewer feedback so you can catch claim and citation issues before they reach an actual reviewer." buttonLabel="Try Jenni Free" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />

Whether you are heading into single-blind, double-blind, or open review, the strongest position you can be in is one where your manuscript holds up under scrutiny before it reaches a reviewer's desk.

Start with your claims and citations, since those are what every reviewer checks first regardless of the format.

Once the reports come back, revising with purpose using peer review feedback is what turns comments into a stronger paper.

If you want to go further, our guide on how to write a peer review report covers the process from the reviewer's side of the table.