Levels of Anonymity and Confidentiality in Peer Review
Single-Anonymous Peer Review*
The identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors, but the reviewers know who the authors are. Single-anonymous review has been the default for many communities for a long time.
Double-Anonymous Peer Review*
Both the identities of the reviewers and the authors are hidden from each other. This provides a higher level of anonymity.
Open Peer Review
ACM's commitment to innovation in open peer review experiments reflects its ongoing efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of scholarly publishing. In open peer review, the identities of the author and reviewers are disclosed to each other and the reader. Reviewers are assigned to a paper, review it, and sign their name. The reviews, decision letters, and author responses are all published if the paper is accepted.
Transparent Peer Review In transparent peer review, the full peer review process is shown, but reviewers can choose to remain anonymous if they prefer. The reviewer reports, editor decision letters, and author responses are published alongside the article, but the reviewers' identities are optional.
Hybrid Review
This model combines elements of single-anonymous, double-anonymous, and open review. For example, the initial reviews may be conducted anonymously, but the identities of the reviewers may be revealed during the discussion phase.
Post-publication Review
In this model, the review process takes place after the paper has been published. This allows for a wider range of feedback from the community and can help to identify errors or issues that may have been missed during the pre-publication review process.
*Most ACM venues use either single- or double-anonymous peer review models.
Module 1: Peer Review Overview
►Levels of Anonymity and Confidentiality in Peer Review
Single-Anonymous
Double-Anonymous
Open Peer Review
Transparent Peer Review
Hybrid Review
Post-publication Review
ACM Peer Review Workflow
****