The peer review process
The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals. Explore what’s involved, below.
Editor Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”
1. Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as ScholarOne Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.
2. Editorial Office Assessment
The Editorial Office checks that the paper adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
The EIC checks assesses the paper, considering its scope, originality and merits. The EiC may reject the paper at this stage.
4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)
Some journals have Associate Editors ( or equivalent ) who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.
5. Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of reviewers is secured– commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.
6. Response to Invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
7. Review is Conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the reviewer’s recommendation (e.g. to revise, accept or reject the paper).
8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making a decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. The Decision is Communicated
The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Comments will be anonymous if the journal follows a single-anonymous or double-anonymous peer review model. Journals with following an open or transparent peer review model will share the identities of the reviewers with the author(s).
10. Next Steps
An editor's perspective.
Listen to a podcast from Roger Watson, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Advanced Nursing, as he discusses 'The peer review process'.
If accepted , the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision , the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision , the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
- Science Notes Posts
- Contact Science Notes
- Todd Helmenstine Biography
- Anne Helmenstine Biography
- Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
- Periodic Table Wallpapers
- Interactive Periodic Table
- Periodic Table Posters
- How to Grow Crystals
- Chemistry Projects
- Fire and Flames Projects
- Holiday Science
- Chemistry Problems With Answers
- Physics Problems
- Unit Conversion Example Problems
- Chemistry Worksheets
- Biology Worksheets
- Periodic Table Worksheets
- Physical Science Worksheets
- Science Lab Worksheets
- My Amazon Books
Understanding Peer Review in Science
Peer review is an essential element of the scientific publishing process that helps ensure that research articles are evaluated, critiqued, and improved before release into the academic community. Take a look at the significance of peer review in scientific publications, the typical steps of the process, and and how to approach peer review if you are asked to assess a manuscript.
What Is Peer Review?
Peer review is the evaluation of work by peers, who are people with comparable experience and competency. Peers assess each others’ work in educational settings, in professional settings, and in the publishing world. The goal of peer review is improving quality, defining and maintaining standards, and helping people learn from one another.
In the context of scientific publication, peer review helps editors determine which submissions merit publication and improves the quality of manuscripts prior to their final release.
Types of Peer Review for Manuscripts
There are three main types of peer review:
- Single-blind review: The reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
- Double-blind review: Both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
- Open peer review: The identities of both the authors and reviewers are disclosed, promoting transparency and collaboration.
There are advantages and disadvantages of each method. Anonymous reviews reduce bias but reduce collaboration, while open reviews are more transparent, but increase bias.
Key Elements of Peer Review
Proper selection of a peer group improves the outcome of the process:
- Expertise : Reviewers should possess adequate knowledge and experience in the relevant field to provide constructive feedback.
- Objectivity : Reviewers assess the manuscript impartially and without personal bias.
- Confidentiality : The peer review process maintains confidentiality to protect intellectual property and encourage honest feedback.
- Timeliness : Reviewers provide feedback within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely publication.
Steps of the Peer Review Process
The typical peer review process for scientific publications involves the following steps:
- Submission : Authors submit their manuscript to a journal that aligns with their research topic.
- Editorial assessment : The journal editor examines the manuscript and determines whether or not it is suitable for publication. If it is not, the manuscript is rejected.
- Peer review : If it is suitable, the editor sends the article to peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
- Reviewer feedback : Reviewers provide feedback, critique, and suggestions for improvement.
- Revision and resubmission : Authors address the feedback and make necessary revisions before resubmitting the manuscript.
- Final decision : The editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewer comments.
- Publication : If accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting before being published in the journal.
Pros and Cons
While the goal of peer review is improving the quality of published research, the process isn’t without its drawbacks.
- Quality assurance : Peer review helps ensure the quality and reliability of published research.
- Error detection : The process identifies errors and flaws that the authors may have overlooked.
- Credibility : The scientific community generally considers peer-reviewed articles to be more credible.
- Professional development : Reviewers can learn from the work of others and enhance their own knowledge and understanding.
- Time-consuming : The peer review process can be lengthy, delaying the publication of potentially valuable research.
- Bias : Personal biases of reviews impact their evaluation of the manuscript.
- Inconsistency : Different reviewers may provide conflicting feedback, making it challenging for authors to address all concerns.
- Limited effectiveness : Peer review does not always detect significant errors or misconduct.
- Poaching : Some reviewers take an idea from a submission and gain publication before the authors of the original research.
Steps for Conducting Peer Review of an Article
Generally, an editor provides guidance when you are asked to provide peer review of a manuscript. Here are typical steps of the process.
- Accept the right assignment: Accept invitations to review articles that align with your area of expertise to ensure you can provide well-informed feedback.
- Manage your time: Allocate sufficient time to thoroughly read and evaluate the manuscript, while adhering to the journal’s deadline for providing feedback.
- Read the manuscript multiple times: First, read the manuscript for an overall understanding of the research. Then, read it more closely to assess the details, methodology, results, and conclusions.
- Evaluate the structure and organization: Check if the manuscript follows the journal’s guidelines and is structured logically, with clear headings, subheadings, and a coherent flow of information.
- Assess the quality of the research: Evaluate the research question, study design, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Consider whether the methods are appropriate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are supported by the data.
- Examine the originality and relevance: Determine if the research offers new insights, builds on existing knowledge, and is relevant to the field.
- Check for clarity and consistency: Review the manuscript for clarity of writing, consistent terminology, and proper formatting of figures, tables, and references.
- Identify ethical issues: Look for potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.
- Provide constructive feedback: Offer specific, actionable, and objective suggestions for improvement, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Don’t be mean.
- Organize your review: Structure your review with an overview of your evaluation, followed by detailed comments and suggestions organized by section (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion).
- Be professional and respectful: Maintain a respectful tone in your feedback, avoiding personal criticism or derogatory language.
- Proofread your review: Before submitting your review, proofread it for typos, grammar, and clarity.
- Couzin-Frankel J (September 2013). “Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study”. Science . 341 (6152): 1331. doi: 10.1126/science.341.6152.1331
- Lee, Carole J.; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Zhang, Guo; Cronin, Blaise (2013). “Bias in peer review”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64 (1): 2–17. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
- Slavov, Nikolai (2015). “Making the most of peer review”. eLife . 4: e12708. doi: 10.7554/eLife.12708
- Spier, Ray (2002). “The history of the peer-review process”. Trends in Biotechnology . 20 (8): 357–8. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7799(02)01985-6
- Squazzoni, Flaminio; Brezis, Elise; Marušić, Ana (2017). “Scientometrics of peer review”. Scientometrics . 113 (1): 501–502. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4
Related Posts
Peer review process
Introduction to peer review, what is peer review.
Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.
How does it work?
When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editorial team will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.
There are four main types of peer review used by BMC:
Single-blind: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report.
Double-blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.
Open peer: authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.
Transparent peer: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report. If the manuscript is accepted, the anonymous reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.
Different journals use different types of peer review. You can find out which peer-review system is used by a particular journal in the journal’s ‘About’ page.
Why do peer review?
Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the manuscript. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the manuscripts they review. By undergoing peer review, manuscripts should become:
More robust - peer reviewers may point out gaps in a paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
Easier to read - if parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can suggest changes.
More useful - peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field.
For more information and advice on how to get published, please see our blog series here .
How peer review works
The peer review process can be single-blind, double-blind, open or transparent.
You can find out which peer review system is used by a particular journal in the journal's 'About' page.
N. B. This diagram is a representation of the peer review process, and should not be taken as the definitive approach used by every journal.
IMAGES
VIDEO