In June of 2023, the National Information Standard’s Organization (NISO) published a set of standard terminology for peer-review. The standards cover a variety of topics mostly pertaining to how reviewers can refer to their interactions specifically and clearly. In 2020, a BioMed Central article was published citing common confusion around the use of the term “double-blind” due to its being vague and unspecific. This study concluded, that among other things, “the term ‘double-blind’ (and its derivatives, single- and triple-blind, fully blind, and partially blind or masked) has no standard or widely accepted definition. Agreement about which groups are blinded is poor, and authors using these terms often do not identify which groups were blinded, despite specific reporting guidelines to the contrary” (Lang, Stroup; 2020). In order to combat this, NISO working groups and committees have come together to publish standard definitions that should be observed in order to portray a journal’s peer-review process as explicitly and clearly as possible. The table below addresses a more specific, and sensitive, way to address the different levels of anonymity in a review.
| Type | Description |
| all identities visible | Reviewer identity is visible to author, author identity is visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor |
| single anonymized | Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor |
| double anonymized | Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is not made visible to reviewer, reviewer and author identity is visible to (decision-making) editor |
| triple anonymized | Reviewer identity is not made visible to author, author identity is not made visible to reviewer, reviewer & author identity is not made visible to (decision-making) editor |
With more clearly defined terminology, readers can be more informed about precisely what type of review was carried out to publish an article of interest. The set of standards also included a suggested set of metadata pertaining to the review process that it is always good to be sure to collect. This list included dates of submission, acceptance, and publication; whether the submission was “fast-tracked;” the number of reviewers involved, the number of revision rounds, and disclosure of what technical tools were used in the review process.
To find out more about this standard and specific language on a variety of peer-review terms, be sure to navigate to the NISO Standards. For more information on standards, you can also visit the Boston College Libraries’ Engineering LibGuide on standards organizations, which help to create and publish standards for a variety of disciplines.