What do we mean by ‘peer review’?
For journal editors, publishers and universities, the most commonly used explanation of peer review is:
“…the process of someone reading, checking, and giving his or her opinion about something that has been written by another scientist or expert working in the same subject area” (from Cambridge Dictionary, web edition)
The review process should include comments from reviewers who do not have any conflicts of interest with the author(s) and who are able to make objective decisions. Reviewers should focus on the academic quality of the work in question and its value or originality for its community. Reviewers should also check the methods used by the researcher. While language and copy editing help to improve the overall presentation and readability of the final article or book, the purpose of peer review is to ensure that the research has been properly conducted according to discipline-specific and relevant research practices. Peer reviewers should be sensitive to the fact that authors may not be writing in their first language and present any comments on writing style accordingly.
For books and chapters the general principles are the same, but the process can be somewhat different due to the length of book manuscripts. In addition, monographs in humanities disciplines often cover niche topics and/or are often written in languages other than English. This can significantly reduce the pool of qualified reviewers, particularly where both subject expertise and language proficiency are required. As a result, identifying reviewers who are sufficiently independent from the author can be difficult, increasing the risk of potential conflicts of interest. Editors in these disciplines may need to consider this balance when selecting reviewers.
Moreover, practices vary across disciplines, regions, and scholarly traditions: some follow a two-stage review process, with an initial assessment of the proposal followed by a detailed review of the full manuscript, while in others series editors are centrally involved in one or both stages and may also act as reviewers, particularly in the later phase.
Different disciplines and research communities have developed their own models of peer review in line with their own norms and needs. Differences can include whether the identities of reviewers and/or authors are known to each other and what criteria the reviewers base their assessment of a given work on. Moreover, the timing of the peer review can vary depending on the model adopted: for example, pre-publication peer review and post-publication peer review.
A trustworthy journal should clearly and publicly define what type of peer review is being applied. It is also recommended that journals follow the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For books, the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) also provides useful information about PRISM: Peer Review Information Service for Monographs, which is a standardised way for academic publishers to display information about their peer review processes. The OAPEN OA Books Toolkit provides more information on the subject in this article about peer review and quality control.
Definitions of the different types of peer review are also available.