What is the difference between full and short peer review?

All manuscripts submitted to Frontiers receive an in-depth review from qualified expert reviewers and editors. Full peer review includes both ‘Independent Review’ and ‘Interactive Review’ phases. In the Independent Review phase – which more closely resembles traditional peer review - each reviewer prepares a report on the manuscript which aids the Associate Editor in indicating the level of revision required for the manuscript. The ‘Interactive Review’ phase, which is unique to Frontiers, follows the Independent Review phase and allows authors and reviewers to correspond directly, with the goal of improving the manuscript as much as is reasonably achievable.

 

Full Review is carried out when novel data, techniques, methods, etc., are presented and thereby require detailed validation. Article types subject to full peer review are:

 

  • Original Research
  • Methods
  • Protocols
  • Technology Report
  • Review
  • Mini Review
  • Hypothesis & Theory
  • Perspective
  • Clinical Trial
  • Case Report
  • Data Report
  • Clinical Case Studies
  • CPC
  • General Commentaries
  • Opinion
  • Focused Review
  • Frontiers Commentary

 

Short reviews are applied to manuscripts that do not require extensive validation. The Independent Review phase is skipped, and Interactive Review is immediately activated. The Associate Editor will review the manuscript, and may choose to invite one or more additional reviewers. Any reviewers and the editor will give feedback directly in the Interactive Review Forum. Article types subject to short peer review are:

 

  • Editorial
  • Book Review
  • Classification
  • Erratum
  • Correction
  • Specialty Grand Challenge
  • Field Grand Challenge