Peer review models on IOP journals

We are moving all of our owned journals to double-blind peer review by the end of 2021, making us the first physics publisher to adopt the approach portfolio-wide. You can read more about these changes here.

Our current peer review models on our journals are as follows:

Double-blind peer review

The following journals operate a double-blind peer review model, in which authors remain anonymous to the reviewers throughout the review process.

Authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript before submitting their paper. A checklist is available to help authors with this process and is also available in Chinese.

Five of our journals give authors the opportunity to choose whether their paper goes through double-blind or single-blind peer review:

Is double-blind peer review compatible with the sharing of preprints?
IOP supports the early sharing of research results via preprint servers such as arXiv and other early sharing platforms. This does mean that author identities may be easier to find online if reviewers try to find them. We ask our reviewers to undertake an objective review of an article and when agreeing to a double-blind review we trust that they will not go out of their way to undermine author anonymity.

Single-blind peer review

All other IOPP journals operate the single-blind review process, in which reviewers know the identity of the authors but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Transparent peer review

Ten of our journals (Environmental Research Communications, Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, Environmental Research Letters, IOP SciNotes, JPhys Complexity, JPhys Energy, JPhys Materials, JPhys Photonics, Journal of Neural Engineering and Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering) now offer authors and reviewers the option of transparent peer review. This enables the publication, alongside a published article, of that article’s entire peer review content (reviewer reports, author responses and decision letters) in an easily discoverable and citable form. We hope that this greater transparency will improve the quality of the review process, give more recognition to the work of reviewers and help with the teaching of best practice in peer review.

Both authors and reviewers have the option of opting out of transparent peer review should they wish to do so (and reviewers who do opt in may choose to remain anonymous): the peer review history will only appear for articles where the author and (all) reviewers opt in. The peer review history is available only for articles displaying a blue Publons “P” badge at the top of the article (next to the title) with a number in a red circle, indicating the number reviewer reports, which can be viewed by clicking on the badge. All peer review content displayed will be covered by a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license. IOP Publishing retains the right to make minor edits to reports to improve readability and ensure they are suitable for publication, and in exceptional circumstances to withdraw reports.

Some example articles published with transparent peer review content are available here:
ERL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5f96; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab763f
JNE: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/ab5e08; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-2552/ab6cba
JPMat: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7639/ab749c

Post publication review

While we do not have any functionality on our site for post-publication review, we welcome comments on published work. This could be via social media (many of our journals have their own Twitter accounts, for example), or via an external website such as PubPeer. Some of our journals publish comments on previously published work. Check your journal instructions for more information.