The peer review process

The process of peer review is vital to academic research because it means that articles published in academic journals are of the highest possible quality, validity, and relevance. Journals rely on the dedication and support of reviewers to make sure articles are suitable for publication.

In this guide, we’ll take you through everything you need to know about peer review and your role in it, including the peer review process steps.

What is peer review and why is it so important?

Peer review is the independent assessment of a research paper by experts in the field. Its purpose is to evaluate a manuscript’s quality and suitability for publication.

Even for very specialist journals, the editor can’t be an expert on the topic of every article submitted. So, the comments of carefully selected reviewers – like you – are an essential guide for the editor’s decision on a manuscript.

Clarivate analytics – Publons’ 2018 Global Reviewer Survey found that 98% of respondents consider peer review either important (31.2%) or extremely important (66.8%) for ensuring the general quality and integrity of scholarly communication.

Peer review is also a very useful source of feedback for authors, allowing them to receive constructive support to advance their work. A 2015 Taylor & Francis study found that most researchers, across all subject areas, rated the contribution of peer review towards improving their article as 8 or above out of 10.

Steps in the peer review process

Typically, the peer review process follows the steps outlined below.

  • Author submits article
    • The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system, although some journals may accept submissions by email.
  • Editorial assessment
    • The journal checks the paper against its instructions for authors to make sure it includes all the required sections and that it has been written in the format and style needed.
    • The editor(s) then check that the paper fits with the journal’s aims and scope and is sufficiently original and interesting to the journal’s audience. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
    • Some journals may also carry out further checks on reporting and reproducibility at this stage.
  • Invitation to reviewers
    • At this stage, invitations are sent to individuals identified as appropriate reviewers for the paper with the option to accept or decline. The journal will find a minimum of two independent reviewers.
    • When an invitation is received, it is the responsibility as the reviewer to know and follow the ethical guidelines for peer review. After the invitation is accepted, the paper will be sent to the reviewer for assessment.
    • If you are unable to review, but you think a colleague might be interested, you must not forward the invitation to them as this impacts the confidentiality for the author(s). Instead, recommend your colleague to the editor so that they can be invited.
  • Review is conducted
    • Reviewers usually set time aside to read the paper several times to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject the paper – or with a request for revision.
    • Revisions can either be flagged as major or minor, depending on how much work is requested to be done on the manuscript. Please take a look at our step-by-step guide on how to write a peer review report.
  • Journal assesses the reviews
    • The editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to give an extra opinion before deciding.
  • The decision is communicated
    • The editor sends a decision to the author(s) to either: accept, reject, or request revisions. Usually, this will be accompanied by the reviewer reports – and further editorial guidance, if revisions are being requested.
    • At this point, reviewers should also be told 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, follow-up review might be done by the editor.

What happens next?

Once an article has been through peer review and any rounds of revisions, a final decision to publish or reject the paper will be made. Here are three possible outcomes to expect:

  • Article production
    If the decision is to publish the paper, it will go into production and eventually appear on the journal’s website.
  • Article rejection
    When an article is rejected, the author will receive the reviewer reports to help them develop their work further. Therefore, it’s important to read our guidelines for reviewers to make sure the authors get the most helpful feedback possible from your reviewer report.

Different types of peer review

Peer review takes different forms and each type has pros and cons. The type of peer review model used will often vary between journals. The Primary Education Journal uses double-anonymous peer review as the type of peer review.

Double-anonymous peer review

In this model, which is also known as ‘double-blind review’, author(s) don’t know that you are the reviewer of the article. And you don’t know who the author(s) are either. Double-anonymous review is particularly common in humanities and some social sciences’ journals.

Pros and cons of double-anonymous peer review

In this model the author(s) don’t know that you are the reviewer of the article. And you don’t know who the author(s) are either. 

Many researchers prefer double-anonymous review because they believe it will give their paper a fairer chance than other review models. It can avoid the risk of a paper suffering from the unintended bias of reviewers who know the seniorities, genders, or nationalities of a paper’s author(s). 

However, the reviewers may not be able to avoid discerning author(s) identity, especially if they work in a very specialized field. Reviewers might have heard author(s) present the same ideas at a conference, or recognize they writing style.

Pros Cons
Less risk of conscious or unconscious bias from either the reviewer, or the author It’s not possible to guarantee the anonymity of the author. For example, if the reviewer was already familiar with their work or had heard that someone was working on a particular topic
Reviewers can feel more protected from criticism of their review Some reviewers may use their anonymity to write reviews that are rushed, rude, or unfair, which they might not do if their name was being associated with the comments

I still have questions

Please read our extensive frequently asked questions for answers to common questions on reviewing a manuscript.