======= Date Modified 10 19 2009 06:19:30 =======
Hi there,

I've got one paper under review with a mid-to-lower tier journal and now noticed that the terms " (anonymous) peer review" actually seem to comprise a variety of different practices of refereeing? I always thought that the editor first screens the submissions and then decides which ones to send out to (two) different reviewers for double-blind review.


The journal that I'm dealing with currently has a different practice (although also calling it peer review and anonymous refereeing): all members of the editorial board read the contribution and discuss them in detail at their board meeting (blind-review), then (e.g. for getting additional consult on the stats part) a paper gets forwarded to external reviewers for double-blind review.


I'm just wondering if you have experience/opinions whether the specific practice of peer review is itself an indicator about the "quality" of the journal? I'm happy about my R&R regardless of the rank of the journal really, but was surprised to find this different practice. If the editorial board are the main reviewers, it is "only" a "single"-blind review (I know who the board members are but they don't know my name/affiliation).


Also, the comments I got were mainly from the external reviewers, so somehow I'm wondering where the "rest" of the review is.. this latter issue is not something you can answer of course but maybe someone has had experiences with this type of reviewing process?


So basically I'm curious what's your experiences with different reviewing practices, and whether anyone has encountered the one described above?