Every Type of Peer Review (in 1 article!)

You came here to find out every single type of peer review. New forms keep emerging, but this post covers all the major, minor, and experimental faces of this vital aspect of academic publishing. With no further ado…

Contents (click to expand)

Common types of peer review

The most common types of peer review feature a balance of anonymity, fairness, and transparency. They let reviewers give candid feedback with a degree of security, encouraging the free expression of views.

1. Single-blind (single-anonymous) peer review

Single-blind (or single-anonymized) peer review is the most common type. The authors don’t know the reviewers’ names in this type of review. Many publishers, including majors such as Taylor & Francis, MDPI, Elsevier, and Nature, use single-blind peer review.

Journals use this type of peer review because they tend to receive more honest and critical feedback from reviewers whose identities are masked from those of the authors. By remaining anonymous, reviewers can avoid receiving backlash from authors and tarnishing their reputations. Academic circles consist of relatively few experts, and people tend to know each other. A bad reputation can severely damage a person’s career, especially early career academics who must still prove their value to establish fruitful collaborations and find jobs.

Knowing authors’ identities also helps reviewers improve the quality and relevance of their feedback. By referring to authors’ previous published work, reviewers can gain insights that can be incorporated into their review reports on the latest study (indeed, some medical journals, such as The BMJ and Lancet, insist on this).

However, journals have also noticed that reviewers can be biased in their evaluations if they know who the authors are. For instance, famous authors and authors affiliated with highly prestigious research institutions are more likely to receive positive reviews and get their papers published than others. Reviews may also be biased against specific gender(s), seniority, nationalities, and ethnic groups. Institutional bias can also be an issue in the peer review process.

Pros

Anonymous reviewers give more honest and critical feedback.
Anonymity allows reviewers to overcome their fear of backlash from authors or tarnishing their reputation within an already tight circle of niche experts.
Knowing authors’ identities helps reviewers improve the quality and relevance of the feedback.

Cons

Knowing the authors’ identities can bias reviewers’ evaluations of the manuscripts based on the authors’ reputation, seniority, and other demographic traits.

2. Double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review

In double-blind (double-anonymous) peer review, both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. Journals have often switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review to eliminate the biases inherent in single-blind peer review, and many give authors a choice. Some (like Bentham Science) just use double-blind as a standard. Notably, by masking an author’s academic and demographic status, the primary aim is to prevent reviewers from penalizing or giving more favorable reviews.

As in single-blind peer review, both reviewers and authors in double-blind peer review communicate solely with the editor to maintain anonymity. Also, authors and reviewers can avoid any future conflicts of interest arising from knowing about each others’ study rigor and evaluations.

However, if reviewers can’t know the authors’ identities, they can’t improve the quality of their feedback by using insights gained from the authors’ previous work. Nevertheless, despite the authors’ best efforts to remove all traces of personal information, reviewers may still discover who the authors are while reading the manuscript, based on self-citations, discussions about research, and even revealing locations. This latter risk undermines the objectives of the double-blind review process.

Also, reviewers don’t empathize with anonymous authors as easily as when they know their names. So they may unknowingly become overly critical of studies coming specifically from certain countries or poorly funded research groups. For instance, poor English writing skills showing certain types of common mistakes can be a giveaway of the authors’ nationalities.

Among journals that have adopted double-blind peer review, most, such as the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy and over 500 Elsevier journals, offer this form of peer review as their only way to process manuscripts. Others, like some Nature journals, offer authors the choice of single-blind or double-blind during submission.

Authors submitting to double-blind journals must typically submit the identifiable information of a manuscript in a separate covering document that won’t be shared with the reviewers. Such information includes the manuscript’s title, authors’ names, affiliations and addresses, acknowledgments, funding sources, and conflicts of interest. The manuscript’s writing style must also change so that authors aren’t explicitly taking ownership of their previous published work.

Pros

Eliminates many of the biases inherent in single-blind peer review.
Protects the reviewers and the authors from potential future conflicts of interest.

Cons

Reviewers can’t use knowledge of the authors’ past work to improve their review reports.
Reviewers may discover who the authors are while they’re reading the manuscript.
Reviewers may unknowingly become extra critical of manuscripts by less privileged authors and those from certain countries.

3. Open peer review

In open peer review, authors and reviewers know each other’s identities and review comments may be published alongside the article. This type of peer review is becoming increasingly popular among journals. PLOS journals, eLife, Nature Communications, EMBO, and the BMJ. are among those embracing this method

Publishing review reports alongside papers only became possible once journals could post their content online. Open peer review is frequently combined with single- or double-blind peer review. For instance, PLOS Biology uses single-blind peer review by default and allows authors and reviewers to participate in publishing the review reports.

Journals that use open peer review aim to offer greater transparency. Notably, the rigorous comments, questions, and feedback provided by the reviewing experts in their respective fields enrich the quality and validity of the published work.

Both reviewers and authors are also properly acknowledged for their respective work when the paper gets published. Also, this acknowledgment becomes a public and permanent online record. Given that their identities become public, reviewers also tend to behave with more civility and provide more constructive feedback than when their identities are masked.

However, reviewers may also become afraid that the criticism and negative feedback in their published review reports could hurt their careers and collaborations. As a result, journals may feel that some reviewers try to act too civilly and provide insufficient critical feedback.

Publishing reports also puts pressure on reviewers who may feel forced to spend extra time on their document’s spelling, grammar, and overall quality. For busy academics, this may mean precious time is needed to polish their review writing rather than offering more insightful feedback. This pressure to write may be even more aggravating for non-native English-speaking reviewers, which could lead many to decline the invitation to review.

Pros

Review reports enrich papers’ quality and validity.
Reviewers and authors are publicly acknowledged for their respective work in publishing the paper.
Reviewers tend to behave with more civility and provide more constructive feedback.

Cons

Reviewers may act too civilly and provide insufficient amounts of critical feedback.
Publishing the review reports puts pressure on the reviewers, who must spend time polishing their documents.

Less common types of peer review

The less common types of peer review take innovative approaches toward specific publishing challenges. They give unique solutions to issues like bias, cooperation, and continuous evaluation of research. They experiment with different levels of anonymity, collaboration, and timing. Many of these aim to improve publication quality and integrity while adapting to the scientific community’s evolving needs.

4. Triple-blind (triple-anonymous) peer review

In triple-blind peer review, authors, reviewers, and sometimes even editors are anonymous to each other. The idea that editors are human and may preferentially approve publications from famous authors or people within the editors’ network is a known problem in academic publishing.

Increasing diversity within editorial boards and putting more effort into board and reviewer training have progressively addressed this issue. Journals also adopt triple-blind peer review to promote an additional layer of equity compared with double-blind peer review. This approach also prevents editors from being biased against the authors from the beginning of the editorial process.

Despite the added value of masking everyone’s identities from each other, triple-blind peer review is not widely adopted by journals, mainly due to the high costs of implementing it. Notably, this type of peer review requires additional investment in staff tasked to ensure the authors’ anonymity before delegating the manuscripts to the editors. Journals must also restructure their automated submission system to eliminate any authors’ ability to send inquiries to the editors before or during the submission process.

For triple-blind peer review to promote equity, the journals also need to switch exclusively to this peer review method. Otherwise, authors could have the option of gaining privileges by using either single- or double-blind peer review.

Pros

Masking the authors’ identities from the editors and reviewers promotes more equity.
It prevents editor bias right from the beginning of the editorial process.

Cons

Requires additional investment in staff to ensure the anonymity of all parties.
Journals must restructure their automated submission system.
Journals also need to switch exclusively to this peer-review method.
As with double-blind peer review, anonymity is not necessarily guaranteed, especially in highly niche subject areas where experts know each other well.

5. Collaborative peer review

In collaborative peer review, reviewers work together, in some cases with authors, to provide feedback. As with open peer review, journals adopting collaborative peer review aim to go the extra mile to promote open and effective evaluations of academic studies. To this effect, collaborative peer review allows all parties to discuss in a constructive, dialog-driven process to arrive at a unified decision on the outcome of the manuscript.

A broad range of collaborative models exist among different journals that have adopted this type of peer review. For instance, Frontiers journals begin with a conventional, independent peer review of the manuscript. In the second stage of reviews, the reviewers and authors collaborate in a private forum until all the flaws, feedback, and questions brought up by the reviewers have been addressed. In the last step, the editorial board decides whether to proceed with the paper’s publication.

At eLife, the collaborative process begins earlier than in the Frontiers model. The reviewers write a public review of the manuscript. They and the editors then discuss the outcome of the manuscript together.

In the ideal situation, a collaborative model allows all voices to be heard and evaluated. However, in practice, stronger personalities may override the opinions of others, and independent evaluations from reviewers may get lost in favor of the consensus decision. Also, discussions and arguments may become lengthy, and the review process may take longer than more conventional peer review approaches.

Pros

Collaboration allows all parties to discuss in a constructive, dialog-driven process to arrive at a unified decision on the outcome of the manuscript.

Cons

Independent evaluations from reviewers may lose out to the consensus decision.
Ongoing discussions may prolong the review process.

6. Post-publication peer review

In this type of peer review, reviewers evaluate the article after it’s published, often in an open forum. Journals like ScienceOpen and F1000Research adopt post-publication peer review to offer rapid publication of studies, eliminate editorial bias, and promote open science.

Advocates of this model also state that it frequently identifies flaws and areas of improvement in the paper thanks to the larger community of peer-reviewing contributors than in more conventional peer-review types. Also, a forum-style open discussion among the reviewers can help refine study methods or bring up new ideas for future research directions.

Journals using post-publication peer review publish the submitted manuscript immediately after a quick editorial check. They then use post-publication peer review as their exclusive method of peer review. They may allow anyone from the public to evaluate the paper and provide feedback on the provided social media platforms. In other cases, reviewers may be pre-selected and have exclusive rights to provide feedback.

The downside to allowing a community to review published articles is that authors may receive feedback ranging in quality, relevance, and expertise. This is because not all reviewers may be experts in the authors’ field of study. Given the general lack of guidelines and standards, comments may also be biased, personal, and uninformative.

Pros

Rapid publication of papers is possible, leaving peer reviewing for later.
The larger community of peer reviewers effectively identifies flaws and areas of improvement in the paper.
Open discussion among the reviewers can also help to refine the methods used in the study or bring up new ideas for future research directions.

Cons

Feedback may range in quality, relevance, and expertise.
A general lack of guidelines and standards may lead to biased, personal, or uninformative comments.

7. Signed peer review

Reviewers sign their reviews in signed peer review, revealing their identity to the authors.

A signed peer review doesn’t mean that reviewers make their signatures public during the publication process. It’s simply a way of stating that reviewers allow authors, editors, and the public to know their names either during or after the peer review process.

Signing reviews is a common practice in open and transparent peer review and other peer review models that promote transparency. This is because these types of peer review aim to improve the quality and validity of the papers and acknowledge the reviewers’ contributions. Some reviewers also choose to sign their review reports during single- and double-blind peer reviews.

8. Published peer review

In this type of peer review, the review reports are published alongside the article. Published peer review can be combined with other types of peer review. For example, journals using open peer review frequently publish peer review reports alongside the paper, and those using transparent peer review publish them by default.

Journals opt to publish review reports to allow readers to understand the published article better. For instance, the issues and questions addressed by the reviewers can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Published review reports also make them a part of the permanent record associated with the published article and publicly acknowledge the value of the reviewers’ contributions. Strong advocates of this model, like PLOS, also state that publicly available review reports become educational materials. They allow future generations of academics to learn the peer review process by tapping directly into the work of the experts.

However, as explained with open peer review, publishing the peer review primarily puts pressure on the reviewers. Specifically, they must ensure that their evaluations meet the quality standards expected by the entire academic community.

Pros

Published peer-review reports allow readers to understand the published article better.
They become a part of the permanent record and publicly acknowledge the value of the reviewers’ contributions.
They become educational materials to learn the peer review process.

Cons

Publishing review reports primarily puts pressure on the reviewers.

9. Transparent peer review

In transparent peer review, the reviewers’ identities and comments are made public, promoting accountability and transparency. This type of peer review essentially goes one step further than published and open peer review by making the entire peer review and decision-making history public. Journals that promote this type of openness aim to reduce opportunities for review fraud, bias, and other manipulations of results and evaluations. In addition to the benefits described for publishing the peer review reports, publishing the entire review history also brings added value to learners of the peer review process and makes the peer review contents citable by other studies.

Depending on the journal, the reviewers and/or editors may be given the option to remain anonymous. Therefore, the transparent peer review approach is fully compatible with single- and double-blind peer review.

Nature Communications and certain Wiley journals are examples of journals that allow authors to publish the peer-review history alongside their papers. They also allow the referees to remain anonymous, sign their reviews, or reveal their identities.

Pros

A fully published review history reduces opportunities for fraud, bias, and manipulation of evaluations and results.
Students can learn to peer review based on the entire review history.
Future authors can cite contents of the review history in addition to the articles.

Cons

Publishing review reports primarily puts pressure on the reviewers.

Rare and specialized types of peer review

Peer review is imperfect, and innovative approaches seek to improve it. These are cutting-edge approaches to peer review. These methods often address niche concerns or leverage new technologies to enhance the review process. The techniques may be unconventional, and these peer review types push the boundaries of traditional review.

10. Portable peer review

Typically, authors can request a willing journal for a portable peer review – transferring their review history to another journal. The editorial board then contacts the previous journal to obtain the manuscript’s peer-review history.

This option mainly aims to improve the efficiency of peer review and benefits journals, authors, and reviewers alike. Editors can save time and resources in finding fresh batches of academics to review the manuscript at each re-submission. Authors can bypass the additional peer reviewers and avoid publishing delays. It also relieves some of the burden from academics, given the increasing number of submissions and increasing difficulty in finding willing reviewers in certain fields of study.

However, portable peer review implies transferring the review history of a rejected manuscript. Therefore, the risk of such a manuscript being viewed negatively and rejected again by the new journal’s editorial board is high.

Moreover, the new journal may have a different scope than the previous journal. In that case, the ported review reports may become irrelevant, and the editor may need to obtain a new series of peer reviews.

Pros

Editors can avoid spending time and resources to find fresh batches of reviewers.
Bypassing additional peer reviewers relieves academics of redundant peer reviewing.
Authors can expedite the decision-making process by bypassing the additional rounds of peer reviewing.

Cons

Ported negative reviews risk getting the manuscript rejected again by the new journal’s editorial board.
The new journal may have a different scope than the previous journal.

11. Third-party peer review

In third-party peer review, an external organization conducts the review, often for specialized assessments. This type of peer review is frequently encountered when publishing engineering and medical studies.

In such fields, regulatory agencies may require studies to be evaluated by external reviewers to ensure that the engineering plans and medical procedures comply with the highest levels of environmental safety, patient safety, and other critical measures. The journals aren’t necessarily benefiting from adopting third-party peer review, given that they must comply with these government regulations.

Peer review by external organizations typically allows academics and consultants to provide critical feedback without the bias associated with in-depth knowledge of the authors and their work. However, contracting with third-party organizations increases the costs of publishing the manuscript, which the authors must shoulder. Also, third-party peer reviewers may not have received sufficient information on the manuscript to review.

For example, the journal’s scope may be unknown to them, and sensitive data used in the study may be off-limits to the reviewers. This can lead to poor or irrelevant critical feedback that may not necessarily help the authors or the study.

Pros

External peer reviewers can provide less biased critical feedback.

Cons

Contracting with third-party reviewers increases the costs associated with publishing the manuscript.
Insufficient access to the journal’s scope and sensitive data associated with the authors’ study may result in poor or irrelevant peer review.

12. Cascading peer review

In this type of peer review, the manuscripts rejected by one journal are transferred along with reviews to another journal, usually within the same publishing group. The primary aim of cascading peer review method is to allow the publishing groups to avoid rejecting a manuscript by finding a more suitable journal.

By transferring the manuscript and the review history, both the authors and editorial boards can save time and money by eliminating redundant submissions and peer review. Moreover, authors can expect their manuscript to be transferred automatically within the publishing group until a suitable journal is found.

For instance, Springer Nature uses an online portal called the Springer Transfer Desk to allow editors to facilitate the movement of rejected manuscripts throughout the publishing group.

The downside to the cascading system is that manuscripts are frequently transferred to journals with increasingly lower prestige. This could discourage authors from submitting manuscripts to high-impact journals in the future and push them to prioritize speedy publishing in lower-impact journals.

Pros

Authors and editors can avoid redundant submissions and peer review.
Authors can expect their manuscripts to be transferred within the publishing group until a suitable journal is found.

Cons

Manuscripts typically get transferred to journals with increasingly lower prestige.
Authors may prioritize speedy publishing in less prestigious journals in the future and avoid cascading.

13. Transferable peer review

In transferable peer review, the reviews are shared between journals within a publishing group. This type of peer review is highly similar to the portable and cascading peer reviews and shares the same pros and cons as the portable peer review. One major distinction from the portable peer review is that transferable peer review occurs within the same publishing group, like the cascading model.

However, the authors must request the transfer or the editor must offer to have the manuscript transferred. The manuscript transfers are not automatically a part of the submission process.

14. Interactive peer review

Interactive peer review involves real-time interaction between authors and reviewers. This type of peer review can be combined with other peer review models. For example, collaborative peer review at Frontiers and European Geosciences Union is also interactive. After an independent peer review, the Frontiers editorial board allows the reviewers and authors to interact in real-time within a closed, online forum to interactively and collaboratively discuss the outcome of the manuscript.

Journals adopt interactive and real-time peer review intending to foster scientific discussion among the reviewers and authors. Active discussions and improvement on the manuscript also aim to speed up the review and revision process and disseminate the articles quickly.

However, real-time discussions may feel intimidating for certain reviewers and authors, especially early-career researchers (ECRs). This is notably because of the pressure of interacting directly with senior or well-known researchers in their field of study.

Pros

The interactive and real-time nature fosters scientific discussion.
Active review and revisions aim to rapidly disseminate the articles.

Cons

ECRs may find interacting directly with senior experts in their field intimidating.

15. Community peer review

In this type of peer review, the wider community is invited to review and comment on the manuscript. Journals adopt this type of peer review to use the power of entire communities of researchers rather than a select few hand-picked by the editors.

The peer review process by a community of academics begins when the journal uploads the manuscript as a preprint and makes it available to the public. After that, different journals apply the community peer review in various ways to publish high-quality manuscripts.

For instance, the Journal of Dairy Research incorporates the community peer review as part of a hybrid peer review. It allows willing academics to apply to be included in a pool of experts who can then provide comments on designated manuscripts through a forum. The discussion among the reviewers and authors remains publicly available at all times and continues until the manuscript is ready to publish. At this journal, the editors make the final decision to publish the manuscript.

At eLife assessment, submitted manuscripts become available as preprints. The editors then select preprints with the highest quality and impact and allow a community of experts to submit anonymous reviews. After discussions between the editors and reviewers, a written assessment of the study’s impact and its strengths and weaknesses is drafted, along with a recommendation for the authors on improvements. After the review process, the preprints, along with the review reports, are published as reviewed preprints. Authors can provide revised versions of the preprints at any time.

Typically, authors submitting manuscripts to community peer review have more control over deciding when a manuscript is ready to publish in its final form.

16. Hybrid peer review

Hybrid peer review combines elements of different peer review types and tries to benefit from both conventional and new-age peer review models. It often includes an independent peer review and a community peer review.

For example, the Journal of Dairy Research sends submitted manuscripts for independent peer review followed, when necessary, by a community peer review. At PNAS, open peer review occurs after the manuscripts are accepted and published.

17. Crowdsourced peer review

In this type of peer review, the review process is open to a large group of reviewers, often beyond traditional experts. Crowdsourced peer review should not be confused with crowd-based peer review. The latter model mainly refers to a community of reviewers that can provide feedback as a crowd instead of one or a few reviewers.

Crowdsourced peer review is often used interchangeably with community peer review. They also share many aspects of using public-sourced experts to improve the quality of academic papers.

Journals adopt crowdsourced peer review to maximize transparency in the peer review stage. It mainly targets early-career and historically excluded academics whose research may not conform to the standards expected by more traditional journals. Crowdsourced reviewers can provide much-needed feedback to this underprivileged community. In turn, they’re also encouraged to offer feedback on other manuscripts that need it. Given that the editorial and reviewer resources are more decentralized, the article processing charge may also be cheaper at journals applying this peer-review model.

The crowdsourced peer review also relies on the public to provide a voluntary service. So, getting readership and obtaining feedback can take time and effort. Moreover, the crowdsourced peer review may result in journal-agnostic feedback, possibly affecting how well the final manuscript draft aligns with the journal’s scope.

PREreview is an example of a crowdsourced peer-reviewing journal. Authors submit their manuscripts’ preprints, which are then added to a publicly available repository. Anyone wishing to volunteer feedback can browse and review the manuscript within their subject area of expertise or interest.

Pros

Maximizes peer review transparency.
It particularly targets early-career and historically excluded academics and encourages them to peer review.
Provides opportunities for historically excluded groups to get feedback.
Decentralized reviewing and editor work may result in cheaper article processing charges.

Cons

Getting readership and obtaining feedback may be unpredictable.
Authors may end up with journal-agnostic feedback, which may affect the revised manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope.

18. AI-assisted peer review

AI-assisted peer review uses artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist in the review process. With that respect, many tools used in the editorial process already incorporate AI. For instance, Statcheck checks the consistency and soundness of the manuscript methods. Penelope.ai checks the format of the manuscript references. Finally, UNSILO summarizes manuscript content. Such tools automate and speed up the editors’ and reviewers’ work and allow them to keep up with the increasing number of manuscript submissions.

Full-blown AI-assisted peer review is still in its infancy. So far, studies have shown that optimizing the AI training model is crucial in providing sound evaluations of manuscripts. Also, over-fitting the model or using a poor choice of training data could result in highly biased reviewer recommendations and peer review.

Uploading highly confidential information from manuscripts and grant proposals to AI is also considered highly unethical and a breach of confidentiality by many institutions. But this is a dynamic topic, and views will likely shift sooner rather than later.

19. Decoupled peer review

In decoupled peer review, the review process is separated from the publishing decision and often involves independent reviewers. The authors initiate peer review by submitting their manuscripts to platforms like RUBRIQ and Peerage of Science. It can be distinguished from third-party peer review, in which the editorial board commissions the manuscript to an external company.

Platforms like RUBRIQ proceed with the peer review using their own community of reviewers and generate official review reports. The authors can then submit the review reports along with their manuscripts to participating journals. Alternatively, journals can access the review reports directly from these platforms and invite authors to publish their reviewed manuscripts.

Like the portable peer review, decoupled peer review aims to reduce the time spent on redundant peer reviewing at multiple journals and alleviate the editorial boards’ workload.

20. Results-free peer review

Results-free peer review focuses on the study design and methodology without considering the results. In the first stage of review, the reviewers evaluate the manuscript without having access to the results, discussion, and conclusion. In the second stage, they review the entire manuscript if it passed the first stage of review.

With this approach, journals aim to focus the reviewers’ attention on assessing the robustness of the study’s aims and design without being biased by the results and implications of the research and results. Several journals, such as BMC Psychology and Comparative Political Studies (PDF). have experimented with this type of review.

However, without access to the full story, reviews may have trouble anticipating and interpreting null findings. Also, even if the results-free peer review may work with the social sciences, it isn’t clear whether it will work with studies in the natural sciences where the interpretation of results and methodology are highly intertwined.

Pros

Focuses the reviewers’ attention on the aims, theory, and study design.

Cons

Reviewers can’t anticipate and interpret null findings.
May not work with studies in the natural sciences.

21. Two-stage peer review

In two-stage peer review, the peer reviewers must first approve the background literature, hypotheses, experimental procedures, analysis pipeline, and pilot results, if any, of a study. A journal like Scientific Reports then pre-approves the study for publication. Hence, manuscripts undergoing this type of peer review are called registered reports.

After completing the study, reviewers evaluate the entire manuscript in a second stage of peer review. Depending on the journal, the final results and conclusion may not be important in the journal’s final consideration in publishing the paper.

As with the results-free peer review, the two-stage peer review focuses the reviewers’ attention on the robustness of the study design rather than on its results and implications. It may also allow authors to have more flexibility to conduct exploratory analyses.

22. Partial open peer review

In partial open peer review, some aspects of the review process are open, while others remain anonymous. For instance, JAPhA Pharmacotherapy, Royal Society Open Science, Open Biology, and Proceedings B mask the reviewers’ identities unless they choose to sign their review reports.

Ready to review ANYTHING or need a reviewer for your journal’s review process?

After reading this guide, you should be the smartest person in the room when discussing types of traditional and cutting-edge peer review. You also should be a peer reviewer, and Reviewer Credits is the place to add yourself to the list of available reviewers, get selected by editors, and get recognized for your efforts. If you haven’t signed up already, sign up now.

Reviewers (current or potential) can learn more here
Journal editors can learn more here

Take A Peer Reviewer Power-Up Course