Elsevier is not a single journal with one review procedure; it is a portfolio of roughly 2,700 journals, each of which sets its own peer review policy within a shared editorial infrastructure. What is genuinely Elsevier-specific is not a single review method but a common set of tools and options layered under journal-level editorial discretion: a defined menu of review models a journal can choose from, a submission platform Elsevier owns outright, a centralized reviewer-recognition system, and one explicit, company-wide reviewer AI policy. This page covers those four points of distinction. For the underlying mechanics of the review models themselves, see the general Peer Reviewer and single-blind vs double-blind vs open peer review comparison pages, which apply across publishers.
Which peer review model a given Elsevier journal uses
Elsevier does not mandate one review model across its portfolio. Its own reviewer guidance describes several models that individual journals select from:
- Single-anonymized review — reviewers know the author’s identity, but authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. Elsevier describes this as the traditional method and the most common model across its journals by far.
- Double-anonymized review — both author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other throughout review. Authors submitting to a double-anonymized journal must prepare a manuscript that does not reveal their identity (no author names/affiliations in the file, self-citations phrased in the third person, funding acknowledgements handled separately), per Elsevier’s own double-anonymized guidelines.
- Triple-anonymized review — used on a smaller number of journals; identities are concealed from the handling editor as well as from reviewers.
- Open review — an umbrella term for several transparency variants Elsevier supports depending on the journal: reviewer and author identities known to each other during review; reviewer names published alongside the article; peer review reports (signed or anonymous) published with the article; or reports published together with author/editor responses.
- More transparent peer review — a lighter-weight option some journals use, publishing information such as the handling editor’s name or the number of reviewers consulted without full report disclosure.
The practical implication for an author or reviewer: Elsevier’s own ‘what is peer review’ guidance is necessary background, but the operative rules are always the individual journal’s Guide for Authors, since the model is a per-journal editorial decision rather than a company-wide standard.
Editorial Manager: Elsevier owns its own submission platform
Elsevier’s journals are submitted and reviewed through Editorial Manager, built by Aries Systems Corporation — a company Elsevier acquired outright in 2018. That ownership is the distinctive point: unlike publishers that license a third-party vendor’s system, Elsevier’s peer-review workflow software is developed in-house by a wholly owned subsidiary. Editorial Manager is used not only across Elsevier’s own journal portfolio but also by Cell Press and by other publishers that license it independently of any Elsevier journal relationship. For how Editorial Manager compares on cost model, CRediT role capture, and typical publisher profile against ScholarOne Manuscripts and the open-source OJS, see Editorial Manager vs ScholarOne vs OJS: Manuscript Submission Systems Compared.
Reviewer recognition: Reviewer Hub and Researcher Academy
Elsevier centralizes reviewer support and recognition through its Reviewer Hub, where reviewers can track review invitations and completed reviews across Elsevier journals and claim certificates of recognition for completed reviews. Elsevier also offers reviewer training through Researcher Academy, including a Certified Peer Reviewer course covering review models, ethics, and how to write a constructive review report. Neither mechanism is unique in kind — most large publishers offer some form of reviewer certificate or training — but Elsevier’s version is centralized across its full journal portfolio rather than administered per-journal, which is the relevant distinction for a reviewer working across multiple Elsevier titles.
Elsevier’s reviewer AI policy
Elsevier has a specific, stated policy on generative AI use during peer review, distinct from its policy on AI use by authors drafting manuscripts. Reviewers may not upload a manuscript, or any part of one, to a generative AI tool, citing risk to confidentiality and proprietary rights, and data-privacy exposure where the manuscript contains personal information. Limited, disclosed assistive use — such as using an AI tool to help phrase a review’s wording, without disclosing manuscript content, or to run a general background literature search — is permitted. This sits alongside comparable policies at other major publishers; see AI in Peer Review: Publisher Policy Comparison for how Elsevier’s rule compares to Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and NIH’s grant peer review process, and AI in peer review for the general concept.
Frequently asked questions
Does Elsevier use double-blind (double-anonymized) peer review?
Some Elsevier journals do; it is a per-journal choice rather than a portfolio-wide default. Single-anonymized review is described by Elsevier as its most common model by far, but a meaningful number of journals — particularly in fields where reviewer bias around author identity or affiliation is a known concern — use double-anonymized review instead. Always confirm the model in the specific journal’s Guide for Authors before preparing a manuscript, since double-anonymized submission requires removing identifying information from the file itself.
What submission system does Elsevier use?
Editorial Manager, a platform built by Aries Systems, which Elsevier acquired in 2018. Authors typically recognize it by an editorialmanager.com submission URL branded to the specific journal.
Can reviewers get credit or certificates for reviewing Elsevier journals?
Yes, through Elsevier’s Reviewer Hub, which lets reviewers view their review history across Elsevier journals and claim recognition certificates for completed reviews.
Can a peer reviewer use ChatGPT or another AI tool to review an Elsevier manuscript?
Not by uploading the manuscript or any part of it to the tool — that is prohibited under Elsevier’s reviewer policy on confidentiality grounds. Limited, disclosed use to help with wording or a general literature search, without exposing manuscript content, is permitted. See the comparison linked above for how this differs from other publishers’ rules.
