With print journals, editors usually commission anonymous peer review. Supposedly this anonymity guarantees a thorough and frank evaluation. It has some drawbacks, however. As journals become more and more specialized, the circle of potential peer reviewers constricts and the criteria they apply become predictable. As this happens, often the range and diversity of work passing their muster will reflect a repetitive orthodoxy.
With respect to signed articles, StudyPlace invites open peer review in which anyone who feels moved to do so can publish a signed evaluation of the article. These evaluations should explain what the reviewer finds to be the strengths and weakness of the article, assess its value as a contribution to the common understanding of what educates and what communicates. Reviews should concentrate on the intellectual and stylistic merits of an article and refrain from ad hominem commentary.
With respect to unsigned, peer-produced articles, peer review can take two forms — either commentary on the article discussion page or direct revision or addition to the article.