Peer Review Explained: Single Blind, Double Blind and Open

Peer review is the process by which experts in a field read a submitted paper and advise the editor whether it should be published, revised or rejected. In single-blind review the reviewers know who the author is, in double-blind review neither side knows the other, and in open review both identities are disclosed. Understanding how each model works helps you prepare your manuscript properly and read reviewer decisions without panic.

What peer review is for

Peer review is a quality filter. It is meant to check that a paper:

• Asks a real question and answers it with sound reasoning.
• States the law and the facts accurately.
• Engages with relevant cases, statutes and scholarship.
• Adds something new to the existing literature.
• Is original and properly cited.

It is not a guarantee that a paper is correct. Reviewers are human, work under time pressure and can disagree. But a journal that runs genuine review gives readers more confidence than one that publishes anything it receives.

Stage one: editorial screening

Before any reviewer sees your paper, an editor screens it. This is often called the “desk” stage. The editor checks:

1. Scope: does the paper fit the journal’s subject area?
2. Basic quality: is there a clear argument, a sensible structure and readable English?
3. Compliance: word limit, citation style, anonymisation and required declarations.
4. Originality: a similarity check against published material.

Papers that fail here receive a “desk rejection”, usually within one to three weeks. A desk rejection is not a verdict on your ability. It often just means the paper went to the wrong journal or was not ready.

The three main review models

Single-blind review

The reviewers know the author’s name and affiliation, but the author does not know who the reviewers are. This is common in the sciences. Its weakness is obvious: a reviewer may be influenced, consciously or not, by the author’s reputation, institution or gender.

Double-blind review

Neither the author nor the reviewers know each other’s identities. The editor sits in the middle and removes identifying details. This is the most common model in law and the social sciences. It aims to make the paper stand or fall on its content alone, which particularly helps students and early career scholars.

Double-blind review only works if the author cooperates. Before you submit:

• Remove your name, affiliation and acknowledgements from the manuscript.
• Replace self-citations such as “as I argued in my earlier paper” with neutral third-person references, or write “[Author, 2025]” as the journal instructs.
• Clear the author field in your file’s properties or metadata.
• Put your details only on a separate title page.

Open review

Author and reviewer identities are known to each other, and in some versions the reviews are published alongside the article. Supporters say it makes reviewers more careful and accountable. Critics say junior reviewers may hesitate to criticise senior authors. Open review is still uncommon in Indian law journals.

What reviewers look at

Most journals give reviewers a form or a set of questions. A typical law review form covers:

• Originality: does the paper add a new argument, analysis or data?
• Accuracy: are statutes, provisions and judgments stated correctly and are they current?
• Argument: is the thesis clear and is it supported step by step?
• Engagement: does the author deal with counter arguments and recent literature?
• Structure and style: is it organised and readable?
• Citations: are sources properly and consistently cited?

Typical decisions and what they mean

When reviewers disagree, the editor decides, sometimes after asking a third reviewer. For practical advice on replying, see our guide on how to respond to reviewer comments.

How long peer review takes

Review times vary a great deal. Many journals aim for a first decision within four to ten weeks. Delays happen when reviewers decline invitations or miss deadlines. It is reasonable to send a short, polite status enquiry if you have heard nothing well beyond the journal’s stated timeline.

Be wary of the opposite problem. A journal that accepts papers within a day or two of submission is not running genuine peer review, whatever its website says. Our guide on how to identify predatory journals explains this and other warning signs.

Ethics in peer review

Good review practice places duties on everyone involved:

• Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts of interest and do not use unpublished ideas.
• Editors choose suitable reviewers, protect anonymity and make decisions on merit.
• Authors submit original work, disclose conflicts and do not try to identify or contact reviewers.

How LJLPS runs peer review

The Lexfolio Journal of Law, Policy and Social Sciences (LJLPS) uses double-blind peer review after an initial editorial screening. Its peer review policy sets out the process and decisions in full.

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, single-blind or double-blind peer review?

Double-blind review is generally preferred in law and the social sciences because it reduces bias based on the author’s identity or institution. Both models can work well if the editors run them honestly.

Can I ask who reviewed my paper?

Not in single-blind or double-blind review. Reviewer anonymity is part of the process, and journals will not disclose names. In open review, identities are shared by design.

Is a desk rejection the same as a peer review rejection?

No. A desk rejection happens at editorial screening, before reviewers see the paper. It usually concerns scope, readiness or compliance with guidelines.

How many reviewers will read my paper?

Most journals send each paper to two reviewers, and sometimes to a third if the first two disagree. Check the journal’s published peer review policy.