Different journals follow different types of peer review based on the kind of research they publish and their journal management style. The single or double blinded peer review is the most commonly adopted format. More recently, some journals have also started adopting open review and post publication peer review.
Single-blind peer review
In a single-blind review, authors are unaware of who reviewed their paper, but reviewers are aware of the authors’ identity. While this method serves to reduce chances of bias or conflict of interest, there is a possibility that making the author’s identity known could influence the review.
Double-blind peer review
In a double-blind review both the author and peer reviewers are not aware of each other’s identity. The risk here is that it may sometimes allow reviewers to give inaccurate or irresponsible feedback to authors.
Open peer review
In an open peer review, identities of both author and reviewers are known. Also, this system allows the peer reviewer comments as well as authors’ responses to be published along with the final manuscript.
Post-publication peer review
The post-publication peer review is a relatively new approach adopted by some open access publications in an attempt to overcome the limitations of traditional forms of peer review. As the name suggest, in this type of review, reviewers evaluate a manuscript after it has been published on an open access platform. Here, the identities of author and reviewer are known (published) and so is the peer review evaluation of the manuscript. This system allows reviewers to take credit for their reviews.
Irrespective of the method adopted, the peer review process functions as a screening mechanism to weed out bad science and to help authors improve the quality of their research.
You may also be interested in checking out these tips on responding to peer reviewers' comments.