9 Comments

Go to the profile of Afshin Khayambashi
Afshin Khayambashi 10 months ago

As a reviewer, I think a single blind review is the better option. reviewers could check the background of the authors to know what papers they've published before and what the novelty of their job is in compare to previous works.

Go to the profile of Rosa Prahl
Rosa Prahl 9 months ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review.

Go to the profile of Yu Mao
Yu Mao 9 months ago

I prefer the transparent peer review, which provides us more insights into the key points of the paper

Go to the profile of Zhenhong Hu
Zhenhong Hu 7 months ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review. In that case, reviewers will give the comments which was just based on the quality of the paper.

Go to the profile of Ivan Palomares Carrascosa

I would ideally think of a hybrid model that combine single and double blind peer review, inviting the reviewer to conduct one or another approach depending on some factors, e.g. whether they have publications or institutions in common, etc. Of course it may sound complex and unrealistic to date, but it may not be too "utopic" in a near future

Go to the profile of Zhou Li
Zhou Li 5 months ago

I prefer the more insightful transparent peer review

Go to the profile of Lei Pan
Lei Pan 4 months ago

double blind  

Go to the profile of Sergio Lopez
Sergio Lopez 2 months ago

Disclose the identities of the authors and the reviewers DURING the review process. The authors have the right to know who the reviewers are.  

Go to the profile of Laura Zhou
Laura Zhou about 2 months ago

I would prefer the double blind peer review.