Peer Review in Workshop Proceedings: Single-Blind, Double-Blind and Open

Workshops use many review models, from full double-blind review to a brief organiser check. This guide explains the models and shows what to look for in a published process.

Last updated 6 November 2026

What peer review means for a workshop paper

Peer review means that people with relevant expertise assess a submission before a decision is made. For a workshop, the decision is usually to accept, to accept with changes, or to reject. The organisers may also move a paper to a poster or short-talk format.

Workshops differ more than journals do. Some run a formal process with a named committee and written reviews. Others have the organisers read each submission and choose by fit to the theme. Both are sometimes described as peer reviewed, so the phrase alone is not enough. The difference between workshops and conferences adds to this variation.

The main review models

Single-blind

Reviewers know the authors, but authors do not know the reviewers. This model is simple to run. Critics note that knowing the authors may allow bias.

Double-blind

Neither side knows the other. Authors remove names and obvious self-references from the submitted file. Reviewers may still guess the authors, especially in small fields or when a preprint is public. Events set their own rules on preprints, so read the call carefully.

Open review

Open review is an umbrella term. It can mean that identities are known to both sides, that reviews are published, that readers can comment, or a mix of these. Always check which meaning an event uses.

Other variants

• Editorial or organiser review: the organisers decide without external reviewers.
• Shepherding: an assigned reviewer guides an accepted paper through revisions.
• Post-workshop review: authors revise after the event and a second round precedes publication.

Program committees and chairs

A program committee (PC) is the group of reviewers for an event. Chairs or organisers recruit it, assign papers and run the final decision. In a larger event, a senior committee may handle disputes or borderline cases.

Useful public details include the names and affiliations of PC members, the number of reviews per paper, the way conflicts of interest are handled, and who makes the final decision. A workshop that publishes these items makes its process easier to check. Absence of detail does not prove poor practice, but it leaves you without evidence.

Committee size also varies. A small workshop may have a handful of reviewers who each read many papers, while a large event may spread papers across dozens of reviewers. Neither is wrong, but a very small committee reviewing a very large number of papers deserves a closer look at how the work is shared.

What publication-ethics guidance says

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. COPE is a publication-ethics body, and its guidance is aimed mainly at journals but states that it is meant to apply across disciplines. Its principles also fit workshop review. In general terms, a reviewer should:

• accept only work they are qualified to assess and can review on time
• keep the manuscript and the review confidential
• declare conflicts of interest
• judge the work without bias about the authors' identity or origin
• write constructive, civil comments
• avoid contacting authors directly without the editor's permission

Impersonating another person in the review process counts as serious misconduct under the same guidance. COPE guidance is advisory and does not bind any particular workshop, so you cannot assume a given event follows it unless the event says so.

How to judge a workshop's review process

Use public material only. Check the call for papers, the website and the published front matter of the proceedings.

1. Is a review model stated, and does it match how the event describes itself?
2. Is a program committee listed, with real and checkable names?
3. Does the call say how many reviewers read each paper?
4. Is the paper type clear, such as full, short or extended abstract?
5. Does the front matter or preface describe the review and report acceptance numbers?
6. Is it clear whether accepted papers are archived?

A preface written by the editors is often the best source for these details. Treat any numbers as the editors' own claim unless an independent source confirms them. For a wider framework, see how to evaluate a proceedings series.

Limits and cautions

Peer review does not guarantee that a paper is correct. It reduces some errors and is itself uneven. A short review may catch fewer problems, and a double-blind process may not hide identities fully.

When you cite a workshop paper, you do not need to state the review model in the reference. You may mention it in your own text if it supports your argument, for example when you weigh the strength of the evidence. Describe it as the event describes itself and cite the source. Do not claim a review standard that the event has not published. When you check a source before relying on it, verifying the citation covers the record itself.

One more caution concerns terminology across sources. Some events use the phrase light review for a check of fit and format only. Others call a long abstract review a full review. When you compare events, compare what each one actually does, such as the number of reviewers and the type of submission, and not the adjectives in its description.

Frequently asked questions

Sources and further reading

Related topics

• Workshop Papers vs Conference Papers: What Is the Difference?Compare workshop and conference papers: scope, length, review, selectivity and archival status, how fields differ, and how to cite and list each on a CV.
• How to Evaluate the Quality of a Proceedings SeriesA checklist to evaluate a proceedings series: organisers, review transparency, indexing claims checked at source, editors and common warning signs.
• How to Verify That a Citation Is Real and CorrectStep-by-step check that a reference is real and correct: search the title, resolve the DOI, compare Crossref and DBLP, and spot fabricated or AI citations.