article review process time

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers

Olena zimba, armen yuri gasparyan.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Address for correspondence: Olena Zimba, Department of Internal Medicine No. 2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, 1 Uzhhorodska St., 79010 Lviv, Ukraine. e-mail: [email protected] , ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4188-8486

Armen Yuri Gasparyan ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8749-6018

Corresponding author.

Received 2020 Dec 5; Accepted 2020 Dec 14; Issue date 2021.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

The peer review process is essential for quality checks and validation of journal submissions. Although it has some limitations, including manipulations and biased and unfair evaluations, there is no other alternative to the system. Several peer review models are now practised, with public review being the most appropriate in view of the open science movement. Constructive reviewer comments are increasingly recognised as scholarly contributions which should meet certain ethics and reporting standards. The Publons platform, which is now part of the Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), credits validated reviewer accomplishments and serves as an instrument for selecting and promoting the best reviewers. All authors with relevant profiles may act as reviewers. Adherence to research reporting standards and access to bibliographic databases are recommended to help reviewers draft evidence-based and detailed comments.

Keywords: research peer review, publishing, periodicals as topic, publication ethics, rheumatology

Introduction

The peer review process is essential for evaluating the quality of scholarly works, suggesting corrections, and learning from other authors’ mistakes. The principles of peer review are largely based on professionalism, eloquence, and collegiate attitude. As such, reviewing journal submissions is a privilege and responsibility for ‘elite’ research fellows who contribute to their professional societies and add value by voluntarily sharing their knowledge and experience.

Since the launch of the first academic periodicals back in 1665, the peer review has been mandatory for validating scientific facts, selecting influential works, and minimizing chances of publishing erroneous research reports [ 1 ]. Over the past centuries, peer review models have evolved from single-handed editorial evaluations to collegial discussions, with numerous strengths and inevitable limitations of each practised model [ 2 , 3 ]. With multiplication of periodicals and editorial management platforms, the reviewer pool has expanded and internationalized. Various sets of rules have been proposed to select skilled reviewers and employ globally acceptable tools and language styles [ 4 , 5 ].

In the era of digitization, the ethical dimension of the peer review has emerged, necessitating involvement of peers with full understanding of research and publication ethics to exclude unethical articles from the pool of evidence-based research and reviews [ 6 ]. In the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, some, if not most, journals face the unavailability of skilled reviewers, resulting in an unprecedented increase of articles without a history of peer review or those with surprisingly short evaluation timelines [ 7 ].

Editorial recommendations and the best reviewers

Guidance on peer review and selection of reviewers is currently available in the recommendations of global editorial associations which can be consulted by journal editors for updating their ethics statements and by research managers for crediting the evaluators. The International Committee on Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) qualifies peer review as a continuation of the scientific process that should involve experts who are able to timely respond to reviewer invitations, submitting unbiased and constructive comments, and keeping confidentiality [ 8 ].

The reviewer roles and responsibilities are listed in the updated recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (CSE) [ 9 ] where ethical conduct is viewed as a premise of the quality evaluations. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) further emphasizes editorial strategies that ensure transparent and unbiased reviewer evaluations by trained professionals [ 10 ]. Finally, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) prioritizes selecting the best reviewers with validated profiles to avoid substandard or fraudulent reviewer comments [ 11 ]. Accordingly, the Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications encourages reviewers to register with the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) platform to validate and publicize their scholarly activities [ 12 ].

Although the best reviewer criteria are not listed in the editorial recommendations, it is apparent that the manuscript evaluators should be active researchers with extensive experience in the subject matter and an impressive list of relevant and recent publications [ 13 ]. All authors embarking on an academic career and publishing articles with active contact details can be involved in the evaluation of others’ scholarly works [ 14 ]. Ideally, the reviewers should be peers of the manuscript authors with equal scholarly ranks and credentials.

However, journal editors may employ schemes that engage junior research fellows as co-reviewers along with their mentors and senior fellows [ 15 ]. Such a scheme is successfully practised within the framework of the Emerging EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) Network (EMEUNET) where seasoned authors (mentors) train ongoing researchers (mentees) how to evaluate submissions to the top rheumatology journals and select the best evaluators for regular contributors to these journals [ 16 ].

The awareness of the EQUATOR Network reporting standards may help the reviewers to evaluate methodology and suggest related revisions. Statistical skills help the reviewers to detect basic mistakes and suggest additional analyses. For example, scanning data presentation and revealing mistakes in the presentation of means and standard deviations often prompt re-analyses of distributions and replacement of parametric tests with non-parametric ones [ 17 , 18 ].

Constructive reviewer comments

The main goal of the peer review is to support authors in their attempt to publish ethically sound and professionally validated works that may attract readers’ attention and positively influence healthcare research and practice. As such, an optimal reviewer comment has to comprehensively examine all parts of the research and review work ( Table I ). The best reviewers are viewed as contributors who guide authors on how to correct mistakes, discuss study limitations, and highlight its strengths [ 19 ].

Structure of a reviewer comment to be forwarded to authors

Some of the currently practised review models are well positioned to help authors reveal and correct their mistakes at pre- or post-publication stages ( Table II ). The global move toward open science is particularly instrumental for increasing the quality and transparency of reviewer contributions.

Advantages and disadvantages of common manuscript evaluation models

Since there are no universally acceptable criteria for selecting reviewers and structuring their comments, instructions of all peer-reviewed journal should specify priorities, models, and expected review outcomes [ 20 ]. Monitoring and reporting average peer review timelines is also required to encourage timely evaluations and avoid delays. Depending on journal policies and article types, the first round of peer review may last from a few days to a few weeks. The fast-track review (up to 3 days) is practised by some top journals which process clinical trial reports and other priority items.

In exceptional cases, reviewer contributions may result in substantive changes, appreciated by authors in the official acknowledgments. In most cases, however, reviewers should avoid engaging in the authors’ research and writing. They should refrain from instructing the authors on additional tests and data collection as these may delay publication of original submissions with conclusive results.

Established publishers often employ advanced editorial management systems that support reviewers by providing instantaneous access to the review instructions, online structured forms, and some bibliographic databases. Such support enables drafting of evidence-based comments that examine the novelty, ethical soundness, and implications of the reviewed manuscripts [ 21 ].

Encouraging reviewers to submit their recommendations on manuscript acceptance/rejection and related editorial tasks is now a common practice. Skilled reviewers may prompt the editors to reject or transfer manuscripts which fall outside the journal scope, perform additional ethics checks, and minimize chances of publishing erroneous and unethical articles. They may also raise concerns over the editorial strategies in their comments to the editors.

Since reviewer and editor roles are distinct, reviewer recommendations are aimed at helping editors, but not at replacing their decision-making functions. The final decisions rest with handling editors. Handling editors weigh not only reviewer comments, but also priorities related to article types and geographic origins, space limitations in certain periods, and envisaged influence in terms of social media attention and citations. This is why rejections of even flawless manuscripts are likely at early rounds of internal and external evaluations across most peer-reviewed journals.

Reviewers are often requested to comment on language correctness and overall readability of the evaluated manuscripts. Given the wide availability of in-house and external editing services, reviewer comments on language mistakes and typos are categorized as minor. At the same time, non-Anglophone experts’ poor language skills often exclude them from contributing to the peer review in most influential journals [ 22 ]. Comments should be properly edited to convey messages in positive or neutral tones, express ideas of varying degrees of certainty, and present logical order of words, sentences, and paragraphs [ 23 , 24 ]. Consulting linguists on communication culture, passing advanced language courses, and honing commenting skills may increase the overall quality and appeal of the reviewer accomplishments [ 5 , 25 ].

Peer reviewer credits

Various crediting mechanisms have been proposed to motivate reviewers and maintain the integrity of science communication [ 26 ]. Annual reviewer acknowledgments are widely practised for naming manuscript evaluators and appreciating their scholarly contributions. Given the need to weigh reviewer contributions, some journal editors distinguish ‘elite’ reviewers with numerous evaluations and award those with timely and outstanding accomplishments [ 27 ]. Such targeted recognition ensures ethical soundness of the peer review and facilitates promotion of the best candidates for grant funding and academic job appointments [ 28 ].

Also, large publishers and learned societies issue certificates of excellence in reviewing which may include Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points [ 29 ]. Finally, an entirely new crediting mechanism is proposed to award bonus points to active reviewers who may collect, transfer, and use these points to discount gold open-access charges within the publisher consortia [ 30 ].

With the launch of Publons ( http://publons.com/ ) and its integration with Web of Science Group (Clarivate Analytics), reviewer recognition has become a matter of scientific prestige. Reviewers can now freely open their Publons accounts and record their contributions to online journals with Digital Object Identifiers (DOI). Journal editors, in turn, may generate official reviewer acknowledgments and encourage reviewers to forward them to Publons for building up individual reviewer and journal profiles. All published articles maintain e-links to their review records and post-publication promotion on social media, allowing the reviewers to continuously track expert evaluations and comments. A paid-up partnership is also available to journals and publishers for automatically transferring peer-review records to Publons upon mutually acceptable arrangements.

Listing reviewer accomplishments on an individual Publons profile showcases scholarly contributions of the account holder. The reviewer accomplishments placed next to the account holders’ own articles and editorial accomplishments point to the diversity of scholarly contributions. Researchers may establish links between their Publons and ORCID accounts to further benefit from complementary services of both platforms. Publons Academy ( https://publons.com/community/academy/ ) additionally offers an online training course to novice researchers who may improve their reviewing skills under the guidance of experienced mentors and journal editors. Finally, journal editors may conduct searches through the Publons platform to select the best reviewers across academic disciplines.

Peer review ethics

Prior to accepting reviewer invitations, scholars need to weigh a number of factors which may compromise their evaluations. First of all, they are required to accept the reviewer invitations if they are capable of timely submitting their comments. Peer review timelines depend on article type and vary widely across journals. The rules of transparent publishing necessitate recording manuscript submission and acceptance dates in article footnotes to inform readers of the evaluation speed and to help investigators in the event of multiple unethical submissions. Timely reviewer accomplishments often enable fast publication of valuable works with positive implications for healthcare. Unjustifiably long peer review, on the contrary, delays dissemination of influential reports and results in ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism of a manuscript under evaluation [ 31 ].

In the times of proliferation of open-access journals relying on article processing charges, unjustifiably short review may point to the absence of quality evaluation and apparently ‘predatory’ publishing practice [ 32 , 33 ]. Authors when choosing their target journals should take into account the peer review strategy and associated timelines to avoid substandard periodicals.

Reviewer primary interests (unbiased evaluation of manuscripts) may come into conflict with secondary interests (promotion of their own scholarly works), necessitating disclosures by filling in related parts in the online reviewer window or uploading the ICMJE conflict of interest forms. Biomedical reviewers, who are directly or indirectly supported by the pharmaceutical industry, may encounter conflicts while evaluating drug research. Such instances require explicit disclosures of conflicts and/or rejections of reviewer invitations.

Journal editors are obliged to employ mechanisms for disclosing reviewer financial and non-financial conflicts of interest to avoid processing of biased comments [ 34 ]. They should also cautiously process negative comments that oppose dissenting, but still valid, scientific ideas [ 35 ]. Reviewer conflicts that stem from academic activities in a competitive environment may introduce biases, resulting in unfair rejections of manuscripts with opposing concepts, results, and interpretations. The same academic conflicts may lead to coercive reviewer self-citations, forcing authors to incorporate suggested reviewer references or face negative feedback and an unjustified rejection [ 36 ]. Notably, several publisher investigations have demonstrated a global scale of such misconduct, involving some highly cited researchers and top scientific journals [ 37 ].

Fake peer review, an extreme example of conflict of interest, is another form of misconduct that has surfaced in the time of mass proliferation of gold open-access journals and publication of articles without quality checks [ 38 ]. Fake reviews are generated by manipulating authors and commercial editing agencies with full access to their own manuscripts and peer review evaluations in the journal editorial management systems. The sole aim of these reviews is to break the manuscript evaluation process and to pave the way for publication of pseudoscientific articles. Authors of these articles are often supported by funds intended for the growth of science in non-Anglophone countries [ 39 ]. Iranian and Chinese authors are often caught submitting fake reviews, resulting in mass retractions by large publishers [ 38 ]. Several suggestions have been made to overcome this issue, with assigning independent reviewers and requesting their ORCID IDs viewed as the most practical options [ 40 ].

Conclusions

The peer review process is regulated by publishers and editors, enforcing updated global editorial recommendations. Selecting the best reviewers and providing authors with constructive comments may improve the quality of published articles. Reviewers are selected in view of their professional backgrounds and skills in research reporting, statistics, ethics, and language. Quality reviewer comments attract superior submissions and add to the journal’s scientific prestige [ 41 ].

In the era of digitization and open science, various online tools and platforms are available to upgrade the peer review and credit experts for their scholarly contributions. With its links to the ORCID platform and social media channels, Publons now offers the optimal model for crediting and keeping track of the best and most active reviewers. Publons Academy additionally offers online training for novice researchers who may benefit from the experience of their mentoring editors. Overall, reviewer training in how to evaluate journal submissions and avoid related misconduct is an important process, which some indexed journals are experimenting with [ 42 ].

The timelines and rigour of the peer review may change during the current pandemic. However, journal editors should mobilize their resources to avoid publication of unchecked and misleading reports. Additional efforts are required to monitor published contents and encourage readers to post their comments on publishers’ online platforms (blogs) and other social media channels [ 43 , 44 ].

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• 1. Banks D. Thoughts on publishing the research article over the centuries. Publications. 2018;6:10. doi: 10.3390/publications6010010. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Jana S. A history and development of peer-review process. Ann Libr Inf Stud. 2019;66:152–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation. Nature. 2020;582:314. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01622-z. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Wicherts JM. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147913. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Whang Y. Reviewing a journal article with clarity and politeness: Key language tips for non-native English-speaking reviewers. Sci Ed. 2020;7:204–208. doi: 10.6087/kcse.220. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Lazarides MK, Georgiadis GS, Papanas N. Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2020;19:227–229. doi: 10.1177/1534734620924349. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Kambakamba P, Geoghegan J, Hoti E. The peer review at high risk from COVID-19 – are we socially distancing from scientific quality control? Br J Surg. 2020;107:e334–e335. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11785. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals Updated December 2019. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf [Accessed: 5.12.2020] [ PubMed ]
• 9. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Available from: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/CSE-White-Paper_2018-update-050618.pdf [Accessed: 5.12.2020]
• 10. Core practices. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices [Accessed: 10.12.2020]
• 11. Best Practices for Peer Reviewer Selection and Contact to Prevent Peer Review Manipulation by Authors. Available from: http://wame.org/best-practices-for-peer-reviewer-selection-and-contact-to-prevent-peer-review-manipulation-by-authors [Accessed: 5.12.2020]
• 12. Mašić I, Begić E, Donev DM, et al. Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications. Croat Med J. 2016;57:527–529. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2016.57.527. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Gasparyan AY, Kitas GD. Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals. Croat Med J. 2012;53:386–389. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2012.53.386. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Gorin SV, Kitas GD. Educating science editors: is there a comprehensive strategy? Croat Med J. 2014;55:672–675. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2014.55.672. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Recognizing the involvement of early-career researchers in peer review. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2020;16:535. doi: 10.1038/s41574-020-0404-2. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Rodríguez-Carrio J, Putrik P, Sepriano A, et al. Improving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program. RMD Open. 2018;4:e000619. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000619. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Habibzadeh F. Statistical Data Editing in Scientific Articles. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32:1072–1076. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.7.1072. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Misra DP, Agarwal V. Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology. Clin Rheumatol. 2020;39:1049–1060. doi: 10.1007/s10067-020-04965-0. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Araújo CG. Peer review: a constantly-evolving scientific process. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2012;98:e32–35. doi: 10.1590/S0066-782X2012000200017. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Gorin SV, Kitas GD. Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals. Croat Med J. 2014;55:271–280. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2014.55.271. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Nahlen D, Clark S. The Publisher’s Perspective on Journal and Book Publishing. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2018;34:381–385. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2018.09.006. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Masukume G, Grech V. The Lancet peer reviewers: global pattern and distribution. Lancet. 2018;391:2603–2604. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31136-X. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop. 2020;44:413–415. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. If you can’t be kind in peer review, be neutral. Nature. 2020 doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-03394-y. [Online ahead of print] [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Yakhontova T. Conventions of English Research Discourse and the Writing of Non-Anglophone Authors. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35:e331. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e331. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:360–364. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Misra DP, Ravindran V. Peer review in academic publishing: threats and challenges. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2019;49:99–100. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2019.201. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Klein JS. Editor’s Recognition Awards. Radiographics. 2020;40:305. doi: 10.1148/rg.2020204001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Riley BJ, Jones R. Peer review: acknowledging its value and recognising the reviewers. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66:629–630. doi: 10.3399/bjgp16X688285. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Gurwitz D. Peer review: Award bonus points to motivate reviewers. Nature. 2017;542:414. doi: 10.1038/542414d. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Mehregan M. Ethical Reviewers are Essential for Scholarly Journals for Timely Processing of Submissions and Avoiding Retractions. J Korean Med Sci. 2019;34:e41. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e41. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Fernandez-Llimos F. Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2014;12:427. doi: 10.4321/s1886-36552014000100001. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. McCann TV, Polacsek M. False gold: Safely navigating open access publishing to avoid predatory publishers and journals. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:809–817. doi: 10.1111/jan.13483. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Akazhanov NA, Kitas GD. Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Croat Med J. 2013;54:600–608. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.600. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Hirsch JA, Manchikanti L, Albuquerque FC, et al. The peer review process: a primer for JNIS readers. J Neurointerv Surg. 2017;9:e3–e6. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011781. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Thombs BD, Levis AW, Razykov I, et al. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Van Noorden R. Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse. Nature. 2020;578:200–201. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00335-7. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Rivera H. Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;34:e6. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Cyranoski D. China cracks down on fake peer reviews. Nature. 2017;546:464. doi: 10.1038/546464a. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature. 2014;515:480–482. doi: 10.1038/515480a. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Gasparyan AY. Choosing the target journal: do authors need a comprehensive approach? J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28:1117–1179. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2013.28.8.1117. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Gregory AT, Denniss AR. Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Heart Lung Circ. 2019;28:1148–1153. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2019.05.171. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Bauchner H, Fontanarosa PB, Golub RM. Editorial Evaluation and Peer Review During a Pandemic: How Journals Maintain Standards. JAMA. 2020;324:453–454. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.11764. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Goel A, Gupta L. Social Media in the Times of COVID-19. J Clin Rheumatol. 2020;26:220–223. doi: 10.1097/rhu.0000000000001508. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (72.5 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Page Content

What is the reviewer looking for, possible outcomes of peer review, common reasons for rejection, what to do if your manuscript gets rejected, responding to the reviewer, peer review.

You want your work to be the best it can possibly be, and that’s where peer review comes in.

Learn more with Wiley Research Academy

This online, on-demand learning program guides you through the publishing process. Take courses to build your skills and understanding, including our course on peer review and responding to reviewer comments. Sign up for a free trial today!

Your work is shared with experts in your field of study in order to gain their insight and suggestions. Reviewers will evaluate the originality and thoroughness of your work, and whether it is within scope for the journal you have submitted to. There are many forms of peer review , from traditional models like single-blind and double-blind review to newer models, such as open and transferable review. Learn about our Transparent Peer Review pilot in collaboration with Publons and ScholarOne (part of Clarivate, Web of Science).

The length of the peer review process varies by journal, so check with the editors or the staff of the journal to which you are submitting to for details of the process for that particular journal. Click here to read Wiley’s review confidentiality policy and check the review model for each journal we publish.

Originality, scientific significance, conciseness, precision, and completeness

In general, at first read-through reviewers will be assessing your argument’s construction, the clarity of the language, and content. They will be asking themselves the following questions:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
• Is the argument well-constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?

They may also consider the following:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for any major issues:

• Are there any major flaws?
• If experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
• Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best practice and meet ethical standards?
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues?

The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected:

• Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled?

The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:

• The journal’s aims and audience
• The state of knowledge in the field
• The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal

The following represent the range of possible outcomes:

• Accept without any changes (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper in its original form. This type of decision outcome is rare
• Accept with minor revisions (acceptance): The journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make small corrections. This is typically the best outcome that authors should hope for
• Accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): The journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors
• Revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): The journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision making after the authors make major changes
• Reject the paper (outright rejection): The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions

The decision outcome will be accompanied by the reviewer reports and some commentary from the editor that explains why the decision has been reached. If the decision involves revision for the author, the specific changes that are required should be clearly stated in the decision letter and review reports. The author can then respond to each point in turn.

The manuscript fails the technical screening: Before manuscripts are sent to the EIC or handling editor, many editorial offices first perform some checks. The main reasons that papers can be rejected at this stage are:

• The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal (submitting the same paper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed)
• The manuscript is insufficiently well prepared; for example, lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references, and tables and figures
• The English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to take place
• The figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read
• The article does not conform to the most important aspects of the specific journal’s Author Guidelines

The manuscript does not fall within the Aims and Scope of the journal: The work is not of interest to the readers of the specific journal

The manuscript is incomplete: For example, the article contains observations but is not a full study or it discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work

A clear hypothesis or research aim was not established or the question behind the work is not of interest in the field

The goal of the research was over-ambitious, and hence it could not realistically be achieved

There are flaws in the procedures and/or analysis of the data:

• The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics
• The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated
• The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field

The conclusions were exaggerated: The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper

• The arguments are illogical, unstructured or invalid
• The data do not support the conclusions
• The conclusions ignore large portions of the literature

The research topic was of little significance:

• It is archival, or of marginal interest to the field; it is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors
• Findings are incremental and do not significantly advance the field
• The work is clearly part of a larger study, chopped up to make as many articles as possible (so-called “salami publication”)

Bad writing: If the language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit of the paper can’t be assessed, then the paper will be rejected. It’s a good idea to ask a native English speaker to read the paper before submitting. Wiley Editing Services offers English Language Editing services, which you can use prior to submission if you are not confident in the quality of your English writing skills

It is very common for papers to be rejected. Studies indicate that 21% of papers are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review.

If your paper has been rejected prior to peer review due to lack of subject fit, then find a new journal to submit your work to and move on.

However, if you receive a rejection after your paper has been reviewed, you will have a rich source of information about possible improvements that you could make. You have the following options:

Make the recommended changes and resubmit to the same journal:

This option could well be your top choice if you are keen to publish in a particular journal and if the editor has indicated that they will accept your paper if revisions are made. If the editor has issued an outright rejection and does not wish to reconsider the paper, you should respect this decision and submit to a different journal.

Make changes and submit to a different journal:

If you decide to try a different journal, you should still carefully consider the comments you received during the first round of review, and work on improving your manuscript before submitting elsewhere. Make sure that you adjust details like the cover letter, referencing and any other journal specific details before submitting to a different journal.

Make no changes and submit to a different journal:

While this option is an easy one, it is not recommended. It’s likely that many of the suggestions made during the original review would lead to an improved paper and by not addressing these points you are wasting a) the effort expended in the first round of review, and b) the opportunity to increase your chances of acceptance at the next journal. Furthermore, there is a chance that your manuscript may be assessed by the same reviewers at a new journal (particularly if you are publishing in a niche field). In this case, their recommendation will not change if you have not addressed the concerns raised in their earlier review. One exception would be if you are submitting to a journal that participates in a transfer program , where authors can agree to have their manuscript and reviews transferred to a new journal for consideration without making changes.

Appeal against the decision:

The journal should have a publicly described policy for appealing against editorial decisions. If you feel that the decision was based on an unfair assessment of your paper, or that there were major errors in the review process, then you are within your rights as an author to appeal. If you wish to appeal a decision, take the time to research that journal’s appeal process and review and address the points raised by the reviewer to prepare a reasoned and logical response.

Throw the manuscript away and never resubmit it:

Rejection can be disheartening, and it may be tempting to decide that it’s not worth the trouble of resubmitting. But, this is not the best outcome for either you or the wider research community. Your data may be highly valuable to someone else, or may help another researcher to avoid generating similar negative results.

You may not be able to control what the reviewers write in their review comments, but you can control the way you react to their comments. It’s useful to remember these points:

Reviewers have, on the whole, given time and effort to constructively criticize your article

Reviewers are volunteers and have given up their own time to evaluate your paper in order to contribute to the research community. Reviewers very rarely receive formal compensation beyond recognition from the editors of the effort they have expended. The author will get the ultimate credit, but reviewers are often key contributors to the shape of the final paper. Although the comments you receive may feel harsh, most reviewers are also authors and therefore will be trying to highlight how the paper could be improved. So, it is important to be grateful for the time that both reviewers and editors have spent evaluating your paper – and to express this gratitude in your response.

The importance of good manners

You should remain polite and thoughtful throughout any and all response to reviewers and editors. You are much more likely to receive a positive response in return and this will help build a constructive relationship with both reviewer and editor in the future.

Don’t take criticism as a personal attack

As stated previously, it is very rare that a paper will be accepted without any form of revisions requested. It is the job of the editor and reviewer to make sure that the published papers are scientifically sound, factual, clear and complete. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to draw attention to areas of improvement. While this may be difficult for you as an author, the criticism received is not intended to be personal.

Avoid personalizing responses to the reviewer

Sticking to the facts and avoiding personal attacks is imperative. It’s a good idea to wait 24 to 72 hours before responding to a decision letter—then re-read the email. This simple process will remove much of the personal bias that could pollute appeals letters written in rage or disappointment. If you respond in anger, or in an argumentative fashion the editor and reviewers are much less likely to respond favorably.

Remember, even if you think the reviewer is wrong, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are right! It is possible that the reviewer has made a mistake, but it is also possible that the reviewer was not able to understand your point because of a lack of clarity, or omission of crucial detail in your paper.

Evaluating the reviewer comments and planning your response

After you have read the decision letter and the reviewers comments, wait for at least 24 hours, then take a fresh look at the comments provided. This will help to neutralize the initial emotional response you may have and allow you to determine what the reviewers are asking for in a more objective manner.

Spending time assessing the scope of the revisions requested will help you evaluate the extent of effort required and prioritize the work you may need to undertake. It will also help you to provide a comprehensive response in your letter of reply.

Some useful steps to consider:

• Make a list of all the reviewer comments and number them
• Categorize the list as follows
• requests for clarification of existing text, addition of text to fill a gap in the paper, or additional experimental details
• requests to reanalyze, re-express, or reinterpret existing data
• requests for additional experiments or further proof of concept
• requests you simply cannot meet
• Note down the action/response that you plan to undertake for each comment. If there are requests that you cannot meet, you need to address these in your response – providing a logical, reasoned explanation for why the study is not detrimentally affected by not making the changes requested

Want to become a peer reviewer? Learn more about peer review, including how to become a reviewer in our Reviewer Resource Center .

Further reading:

How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Dennis Drotar PhD 2 ,
• Yelena P. Wu PhD 3 &
• Jennifer M. Rohan MA 4  

5899 Accesses

2 Citations

The experience of reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals is an important one in professional development. Reviewing articles gives trainees familiarity with the peer review process in ways that facilitate their writing. For example, reviewing manuscripts can help students and early career psychologists understand what reviewers and editors look for in a peer-reviewed article and ways to critique and enhance a manuscript based on peer review. Experiences in review can facilitate early career faculty with early entry into and experience being a reviewer for a professional journal. The experience of journal reviews also gives students a broader connection to the field of science in areas of their primary professional interest. At the same time reviewing articles for scientific journals poses a number of difficult challenges (see Hyman, 1995; Drotar, 2000a, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010, 2011; Lovejoy, Revenson, & France, 2011). The purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the review process and give step by step guidance in conducting reviews for scientific journals. Interested readers might wish to read Lovejoy et al.’s (2011) primer for manuscript review, which contains annotated examples of reviews and an editor’s decision letter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Effective reviewing for conceptual journal submissions

Getting Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals: Advice for Student Authors

Submitting the Manuscript for Formal Review: Efficient and Effective Strategies

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar  

American Psychological Association Science Student Council. (2007). A graduate students’ guide to involvement in the peer review process. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.apa.org/research/publishing/

APA Publications and Communications Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology. Why do we need them? What do they need to be? American Psychologist, 63 , 839–851.

Article   Google Scholar  

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2008). Putting research in context: Understanding confidence intervals from one or more studies. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (9), 903–916.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000a). Reviewing and editing manuscripts for scientific journals. In D. Drotar (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in clinical child and pediatric psychology (pp. 409–425). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2000b). Training professional psychologists to write and publish. The utility of a writer’s workshop seminar. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31 , 453–457.

Drotar, D. (2009a). Editorial: How to write effective reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 113–117.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Drotar, D. (2009b). Editorial: Thoughts in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: How to write a convincing introduction. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 1–3.

Drotar, D. (2009c). Editorial: How to report methods in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 227–230.

Drotar, D. (2009d). How to write an effective results and discussion section for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 339–343.

Drotar, D. (2010). Editorial: Guidance for submission and review of multiple publications derived from the same study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 , 225–230.

Drotar, D. (2011). Editorial: How to write more effective, user friendly reviews for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology . Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 1–3.

Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 , 917–928.

Fiske, D. W., & Fogg, L. (1990). But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper: Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 40 , 591–598.

Holmbeck, G. N., & Devine, K. A. (2009). Editorial: An author’s checklist for measure development and validation manuscripts. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (7), 691–696.

Hyman, R. (1995). How to critique a published article. Psychological Bulletin, 118 , 178–182.

Journal of Pediatric Psychology mentoring policy & suggestions for conducting mentored reviews (2009). Retrieved July 15, 2011, from http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/jpepsy/for_authors/msprep_submission.html

Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42 , 1–13.

Palermo, T. M. (2010). Editorial: Exploring ethical issues in peer review for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 (3), 221–224.

Routh, D. K. (1995). Confessions of an editor, including mistakes I have made. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24 , 236–241.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2006). Reviewing scientific works in psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stinson, J. N., McGrath, P. J., & Yamada, J. T. (2003). Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology : Applying the CONSORT statement. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28 , 159–167.

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses . Medford, NY: Information Today, Inc.

Wu, Y. P., Nassau, J. H., & Drotar, D. (2011). Mentoring reviewers: The Journal of Pediatric Psychology experience. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36 , 258–264.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, MLC 7039, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Dennis Drotar PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Yelena P. Wu PhD

Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3039, USA

Jennifer M. Rohan MA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Drotar PhD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel H, Davie Hall, Campus Box 3270, Chapel Hill, 27599-3270, North Carolina, USA

Mitchell J. Prinstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Drotar, D., Wu, Y.P., Rohan, J.M. (2013). How to Write an Effective Journal Article Review. In: Prinstein, M. (eds) The Portable Mentor. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_11

Published : 25 July 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3993-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3994-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• SpringerLink shop

Peer-review process

Peer review exists to ensure that journals publish good science which is of benefit to entire scientific community.

Sometimes authors find the peer-review process intimidating because it can lead to the rejection of their manuscript. Keep in mind that revisions and improvement are part of the publication process and actually help raise the quality of your manuscript.

Peer review is a positive process

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review—they offer authors free advice .

Through the peer-review process, manuscripts should become:

• More robust : Peer reviewers may point out gaps in your paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.
• Easier to read : If parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can tell you so that you can fix them. After all, if an expert cannot understand what you have done, it is unlikely that a reader in a different field will understand.
• More useful : Peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field and can make suggestions to improve or better highlight this to readers.

Of course, in addition to offering authors advice, another important purpose of peer review is to make sure that the manuscripts published in the journal are of the correct quality for the journal’s aims.

Different types of peer review

There are different forms of peer review used by journals, although the basis is always the same, field experts providing comments on a paper to help improve it. The most common types are

Closed – where the reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

Double blind – in this case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

Open – where there reviewers are aware of the authors’ identity and the reviewers’ identity is revealed to the authors. In some cases journals also publish the reviewers’ reports alongside the final published manuscript.

Back │ Next