Understanding the Peer Review Process
A complete guide to how peer review works, from submission to decision, what reviewers look for, and how to respond to feedback effectively.
Guide
Peer review is the quality control mechanism of academic publishing. Understanding how it works, from the editor's initial screening to the final publication decision, helps you write better manuscripts, respond to feedback more effectively, and navigate the publication process with less anxiety.
The stages of peer review
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
Types of peer review
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
What reviewers evaluate
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?
Common reasons for rejection
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
How to respond to reviewer comments
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.
Ready to check your manuscript?
Upload your paper and get a submission readiness report in under 2 minutes.
Check my manuscript, it's freeNo account · PDF, Word, LaTeX · Results in <2 min
Frequently asked questions
Total time from submission to decision varies widely: 2–4 weeks at fast journals (some PLOS journals); 3–6 months at most journals; 6–12 months or more at some high-prestige journals. Reviewer delays are the main bottleneck.
Major revision means the editor sees potential in the paper but requires substantial changes before it can be accepted. This is not rejection, most papers that receive major revision decisions ultimately get published after revision. Take it as a positive sign.
Yes, but appeals are rarely successful unless based on factual errors in the review, clear reviewer bias, or evidence that the editor misunderstood the paper. A politely written, evidence-based appeal is appropriate in these specific cases.
Always write a response letter for revisions, even minor ones. The response letter shows the editor you took the feedback seriously. Without it, editors may assume you only made superficial changes.