...
In a double-blind review, the identity of both the author and the referee are kept anonymous. This method is preferred in particular in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Evaluation can also be carried out as a single-blind review, where only the identity of the referee remains anonymous. This method is more typical in the fields of natural sciences, technology, engineering and medical science. Peer review can also be carried out openly. In this case, the openness may concern the identities and/or evaluation reports of the authors and referees. An open peer review can be carried out in the traditional way as a preprint or a postprint. There are also different ways of carrying out an open peer review in terms of whether to invite specific peer reviewers into the process or to open the review to the wider community. The problem with open peer review is that not all researchers are willing to act as referees if the review is not anonymous.
...
Peer review is required for publications belonging to categories A1, A2, A3, A4, C1 and C2 of the Ministry of Education and Culture’s publication type classification (see Chapter ‘Publication’, Table 2). The peer review practices of a publication are specified on the publication channel. You can also check whether a journal has been peer reviewed on the Ulrichsweb service. Databases Web of Science and Scopus only index articles from peer reviewed journals. However, both peer-reviewed and non-refereed publications (e.g. editorials) can be published on the same publication channel. In certain fields of science, it is also customary, for example, to publish an article in an open access repository (e.g. ArXiv, Zenodo) before it is peer reviewed.
...