Currently the guidelines say we need at least two. I would argue that as a general guideline a minimum of one reviewer is enough:

• Finding reviewers is not easy.
• Filtering an abundance of weak contributions may not be an important problem, at least initially.
• In some fields (high-energy physics) and some journals (JHEP), one reviewer is the norm.

Sylvain Ribault (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Boris Tsirelson (discuss • contribs) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little reticent about reducing down to just a single peer reviewer since I think its' worth erring on the side of caution. However, I realise that I'm biased by the norms of my field (biomed) where 2-3 reviewers is the norm. I think a case could be made for it depending on how in-depth the review is. I think it will be important to have the general consensus of the board and other editors on this issue, so I'll send an email to the mailing list highlighting it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)