Understanding the Peer Review Process

A manuscript goes through several distinct stages after submission:

1. Submission and technical check (hours to days)

editorial office verifies file formats and basic compliance

2. Editor desk review (1–4 weeks)

editor assesses scope fit, quality, and formatting

3. Desk rejection (if applicable)

editor rejects without review if scope mismatch or quality concerns

4. Reviewer invitation (2–4 weeks)

editor identifies and invites 2–3 peer reviewers

5. Peer review (4–12 weeks)

reviewers read, evaluate, and write reports

6. Editorial decision

accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject

7. Author revision (if required)

authors address reviewer comments

8. Re-review (if major revision)

reviewers check the revised manuscript

9. Final decision and production

accepted manuscripts move to copyediting and publication

Different journals use different review models:

Single-blind

reviewers know who you are; you don't know who they are (most common)

Double-blind

neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identities

Open review

identities known to all; reviews may be published alongside paper

Post-publication review

paper published first, reviewed by community afterward (common in bioRxiv/arXiv)

Registered reports

research design reviewed before data collection

Peer reviewers typically assess:

Scientific validity

Is the methodology sound and the logic of the conclusions justified?

Novelty

Does this advance the field beyond what's already published?

Relevance

Is this within the journal's scope and of interest to its readership?

Reproducibility

Is enough detail provided for replication?

Presentation

Is the manuscript well-written and clearly structured?

Completeness

Are key citations included? Are results fully reported?

Papers are most commonly rejected for:

Scope mismatch, paper not aligned with journal's aims

Insufficient novelty, findings already in the literature

Methodological weaknesses, design or analysis inadequate

Limited sample or dataset, insufficient evidence for claims

Poor manuscript quality, poorly written, unclear structure

Missing or outdated citations, important literature not engaged

A response to reviewers should be structured, respectful, and thorough. Create a point-by-point response document that addresses every comment. Start each response by summarizing the reviewer's concern, then describe your revision, then show the changed text. Thank reviewers for their time and acknowledge valuable suggestions, even critical ones.