Peer Review

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality, and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and thus creating journal brands.

Running articles through the process of peer review adds value to them. For this reason, publishers need to ensure that peer review is robust and reliable.

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?”

The Peer Review Process

The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps, although details may vary between journals:

1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal, typically via an online system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, submissions are accepted by email.

2. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal’s editorial office checks the paper’s composition and formatting against the Author Guidelines to ensure that it includes all required sections and follows required stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this stage.

3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC assesses whether the paper is appropriate for the journal and whether it is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected immediately without further review.

4. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

In some journals, Associate Editors manage the peer review process. If applicable, an AE is assigned at this stage.

5. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor invites individuals who are appropriate reviewers. If responses are delayed or declined, further invitations are issued until enough reviewers (typically two) agree to review.

6. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers assess the invitation, considering their expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and availability. They may accept or decline; if declining, they are encouraged to suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted

The reviewer reads the paper thoroughly, usually several times. An initial reading forms a general impression; subsequent readings focus on detailed analysis. The reviewer then submits a detailed report with a recommendation: accept, reject, or request revision (major or minor).

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor evaluates all returned reviews. If there are significant discrepancies among the reviews, the editor may seek additional opinions before making a decision.

9. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author, including any reviewer comments. Reviewer anonymity depends on the journal's peer review model (single-blind, double-blind, or open review).

10. Next Steps

If accepted, the article moves to production. If revisions are required, the editor includes constructive comments to guide improvements. Reviewers are notified of the decision. If revisions were requested, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the new version, unless they opted out. For minor revisions, the editor may handle the review internally.