The blinded peer review process is the bedrock of journal publishing ensuring holding the line about what is acceptable for publishing and what is not. There is an increasing demand for academics to publish quality papers and for editors to select only high quality manuscripts. Authors generally accept that a good peer review process will help improve their paper. Reviewers generally enjoy reading other academics work but also the opportunity to help someone else, knowing that they may receive help with their papers in the future. However, few reviewers are provided with any training or mentoring on how to undertake a review. Most reviewers learn how to review by assessing articles
A very helpful post by Hugh McLaughlin, Professor of Social Work, Manchester Metropolitan University and Editor–in–Chief, Social Work Education: The International Journal. here on the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog read here
’Double blind’ peer review is the most common form of review, with neither the author or reviewer knowing each other’s identity. This does rely on integrity to declare conflicts of interest. So if asked to review and you are certain you know the author then this should be declared to the editor. Open review is becoming more common:
Open peer review is an unfamiliar experience for many academics, with the added transparency acting as something of a shock to the system. Cristina Costa argues that the change could facilitate a welcome shift away from ‘peer view as monologue’ towards a more dialogical approach.
The tradition in the academic publishing world is for peer review to be double blind- that is neither the author nor the reviewers know who the other parties are. This is intended to assure honest quality reviews but as above it can lead to unhelpful reviews. Christina Costa talks about experiencing an open review process.